Very rough storage validation matrix draft

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Wed Apr 2 23:22:18 UTC 2014

On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 16:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 19:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I need to read back over all the feedback this got when I first put it
> > up, but for now, I looked back over the draft, and I think one small
> > change is all it actually needs, but the implications change:
> > 
> >
> > What does everyone think? Thanks!
> Thanks for all the feedback to this post! I've gone through the feedback
> so far, made a few tweaks, and done some work to clean up the 'device
> tests' - I created some templates for those test cases and edited the
> test cases to use the templates where possible, and be as close as
> possible where they have to diverge. I created the 'virtio device' test,
> too:
> .
> Still got more work to do on this - haven't taken care of RAID yet -
> just reporting progress. Help welcome!

I have now created the 'guided' test cases, using a set of templates in
order to try and retain consistency. I've converted the matching
existing test cases into redirects to the new-style ones. I also did a
bit of rearranging of the new matrices based on things that came up
while writing the test cases.

At this point I think we're pretty close to covering everything that
needs to be covered at least for the 'pre-Alpha' testing we're thinking
of doing, and Alpha itself. I'll probably draft up a modified validation
matrix with this new-style storage stuff included somehow or other
tomorrow, and we can see how that looks.

Thanks, folks!
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

More information about the test mailing list