ValidatorModule.py: lines 141-148: Prior to your change, if count was 0 it would return FALSE. Now it returns TRUE. Does this effect other callers?
Jean Glenn Lagasse wrote: > Hi All, > > Could I get at least two reviewers for this change please? It's not > going in to 2009.06 but I'd like to get some feedback from a few people. > > With this change, the distribution constructor can now generate > cryptographic hashes for the images that it creates. This is done by > specifying the hashes you want (must be supported by the digest(1) > command which I validate using a Validator method) in the manifest used > to create the images. The design is flexible in that you > create/recreate hashes as a separate finalizer step (so if you change > your mind and want different hash types you can get them without having > to start the run over from scratch). > > I've tested this code using the following methods: > > 1) Sample manifest with proper values validates cleanly > 2) Sample manifest with duplicate hash types fails validation > 3) Sample manifest with checksums enabled but no hashes fails validation > 4) Sample manifest with proper values creates hashes > 5) Sample manifest with proper values creates hashes and can be resumed > 6) Sample manifest without checksums validates cleanly > 7) Sample manifest without checksums but specified finalizer script > runs ok but displays warnings when the checksums finalizer script is > run without having specified any checksums to generate > 8) Sample manifest with checksum type not supported by digest command > fails appropriately > 9) Sample manifest, resumed after initial checksum generation, with > different checksums works as expected (ie it generates the proper > checksums as now specified in the manifest > > Webrev: > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~glagasse/slim_5265 > > Bug: > > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5265 > > While there isn't any rush to review this since I've no place to > integrate it yet I would appreciate comments no later than one week from > tomorrow. > > Thanks! > >
