-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12752/#review23457
-----------------------------------------------------------



api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/BaseAsyncCmd.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/12752/#comment47362>

    You could do what ApiDispatcher.java does for validating UUIDs, for 
consistency: 
    
    
uuid.matches("^[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$");



server/src/com/cloud/async/AsyncJobVO.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/12752/#comment47363>

    I'm not immediately certain why this was pulled out.


- Marcus Sorensen


On July 18, 2013, 11:28 p.m., Ryan Dietrich wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/12752/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 18, 2013, 11:28 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and Marcus Sorensen.
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> I added "injectedjobid" to the BaseAsyncCmd class as a parameter.
> If set, it will allow you to tell Cloudstack what the job id instead of it 
> choosing one.
> A basic string length test is done to verify the variable passed in is 
> actually a UUID.
> If it is not valid, it is ignored and the job generates it's own.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/BaseAsyncCmd.java 0e6f95d 
>   server/src/com/cloud/api/ApiServer.java 95f17af 
>   server/src/com/cloud/async/AsyncJobVO.java 41eccb4 
>   test/integration/smoke/test_deploy_vm.py 425aeb7 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/codegenerator.py 632b8c6 
>   tools/marvin/marvin/integration/lib/base.py 161d03c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/12752/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Updated marvin, updated the deploy vm test.  Ran multiple async commands 
> manually, with and without injectedjobid present, no issues detected.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ryan Dietrich
> 
>

Reply via email to