LGTM but I'd like to see the tests more proscriptive. eg we know what arch has to be so test that rather than no nil.
https://codereview.appspot.com/36980043/diff/1/container/kvm/live_test.go File container/kvm/live_test.go (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/36980043/diff/1/container/kvm/live_test.go#newcode101 container/kvm/live_test.go:101: c.Assert(hardware, gc.Not(gc.Equals), &instance.HardwareCharacteristics{}) I do think we should be asserting an actual expected value, not just "not nil"
https://codereview.appspot.com/36980043/
« Back to merge proposal
LGTM but I'd like to see the tests more proscriptive. eg we know what
arch has to be so test that rather than no nil.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/36980043/ diff/1/ container/ kvm/live_ test.go kvm/live_ test.go (right):
File container/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/36980043/ diff/1/ container/ kvm/live_ test.go# newcode101 kvm/live_ test.go: 101: c.Assert(hardware, gc.Not(gc.Equals), HardwareCharact eristics{ })
container/
&instance.
I do think we should be asserting an actual expected value, not just
"not nil"
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/36980043/