Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add integration test for procspy edges. #781

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 6, 2016

Conversation

tomwilkie
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #779

@tomwilkie tomwilkie self-assigned this Dec 17, 2015
@tomwilkie tomwilkie force-pushed the 779-procspy-integration-test branch 2 times, most recently from 205f951 to e5b8e0c Compare December 17, 2015 15:20
@tomwilkie tomwilkie changed the title [WIP] Add integration test for procspy edges. Add integration test for procspy edges. Dec 17, 2015
@tomwilkie tomwilkie removed their assignment Dec 17, 2015
@@ -44,58 +36,84 @@ scope_end_suite() {
done
}

# this checks we have a named node in the given view
has() {
local view=$1

This comment was marked as abuse.

@tomwilkie tomwilkie force-pushed the 779-procspy-integration-test branch from e5b8e0c to fe95714 Compare January 6, 2016 12:02
@tomwilkie
Copy link
Contributor Author

@paulbellamy PTAL

@paulbellamy
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, so the salient point of these tests is that when conntrack is off the probe is forced to use procspy, correct? if so, let's either mention procspy in the test name, or a comment on why conntrack is disabled.

@tomwilkie tomwilkie force-pushed the 779-procspy-integration-test branch from fe95714 to 57a06cb Compare January 6, 2016 13:14
@tomwilkie
Copy link
Contributor Author

@paulbellamy kinda - we're checking process to process edges, which only come from procspy. Have added this to test name.

paulbellamy added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2016
@paulbellamy paulbellamy merged commit a4f7042 into master Jan 6, 2016
@paulbellamy paulbellamy deleted the 779-procspy-integration-test branch January 6, 2016 14:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants