>>> Lars Marowsky-Bree <[email protected]> schrieb am 06.07.2011 um 17:20 in >>> Nachricht <[email protected]>: > On 2011-07-06T16:08:16, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > And for the records, here are the diffs between the old and the new > version: > > Yes. We know. This discussion really belongs here: > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-wg-technical > > > Still the DTD lacks comments to describe the semantics of the elements. For > inspiration, you might look at the XHTML DTD (just one example): > > The DTD is only a syntax, not a semantic description. We will keep that > separate from the pure syntax, and add it into a prose spec. > > > While we are at it: The current specification seems to require "promote" > and "demote": > > It doesn't, but unimplemented actions need to return ERR_UNIMPLEMENTED > and not OCF_ERR_ARGS. > > > I just found out that the RA dispatcher must return 3 (not 2) for > unimplemented methods. Of course it would be better if the ocf-tester would > actually consider the meta-data XML actions before trying to start them. > > Uhm. So why do you post to us about things that we already know? ;-)
Because you know more than I? ;-) > > > For fun I checked the RAs provided with the system (SLES11 SP1), and I > found one bad RA: > > /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/SAPInstance > > -:139: element resource-agent: validity error : Element resource-agent > > content > does not follow the DTD, expecting (version , longdesc , shortdesc , > parameters? , actions), got (version shortdesc longdesc parameters actions ) > > </resource-agent> > > ^ > > Not all agents pass all tests. We know that, too. We do appreciate > patches, or bug reports (via support or bugzilla), or at least mails to > the proper lists (for technical details, ha-wg-technical or even the > linux-ha-dev list). > > The problem here is a DTD that is more strict than is actually required, > we probably need to relax the DTD. If all RAs but one are fine, I'd refer to changing the DTD. A simple re-ordering of the XML elements seems to do the job (trivial change). > > > Any advice on writing a correct RA? (Actually I managed to make my RA > > pass the ocf-tester in the meantime) > > Yes. Again, follow the dev guide. I did that. Regards, Ulrich Windl _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
