Hi Neelakanta, Anders had already created a ticket for NO_DANGLING tests (ticket #636). Maybe we could change the ticket to a defect ticket, and include test cases in OpenSAF 4.4 after holidays.
Regards, Zoran -----Original Message----- From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 18 december 2013 14:50 To: Zoran Milinkovic Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 2] Review Request for IMM: Add support for searching NO_DANGLING references on an object [#50] Hi zoran, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack. comment: Add the test case related to NO_DANGLING including the search option to the IMMSv test (may be at a later stage with a new defect). /Neel. On Tuesday 17 December 2013 10:06 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Summary: IMM: Add support for searching NO_DANGLING references on an > object [#50] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 50 Peer Reviewer(s): > Neelakanta, Anders Pull request to: Zoran Affected branch(es): > default(4.4) Development branch: default(4.4) > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 10d6050f019fcecc3a1e8e340f6d2c9f4926dd24 > Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:59:55 +0100 > > IMM: Add support for searching NO_DANGLING references on an object to > API > [#50] > > changeset 7e183ab6c03a38beb6facf7a754c64d72e37b62a > Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:00:38 +0100 > > IMM: Add support for searching NO_DANGLING references on an object to > the > service [#50] > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_om_api.c | 64 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > osaf/libs/saf/include/saImmOm_A_2_13.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 101 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.hh | 4 ++++ > 4 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Test IMM search for NO_DANGLING references on an object in the way as > it's described in the ticket #50 > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neelakanta and Anders > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > powerpc n n > powerpc64 n n > > > Reviewer Checklist: > ------------------- > [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any > checkmarks!] > > > Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > > ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries > that need proper data filled in. > > ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > > ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > > ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > > ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. > > ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > > ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > > ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > > ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. > > ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes > like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > > ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > > ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > too much content into a single commit. > > ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > > ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. > > ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded > commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > > ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication > of what has changed between each re-send. > > ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. > > ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > > ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > the threaded patch review. > > ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results > for in-service upgradability test. > > ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series > do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
