Hi AndersBj, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
minor comments in README section of the patch: 1. + aImmOmAdminOperationInvokeCallbackT_o2() should have been saImmOmAdminOperationInvokeCallbackT_o2 2. +are generic and not associated with any specific object. For exaple, statistics or exaple should have been example. /Neel. On Tuesday 29 April 2014 08:07 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: imm: Allow admin-operations directly targeting an > implementer/applier [#799] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 799 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): default(4.5) > Development branch: > > -------------------------------- > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset f3bd590108f2bdb2bada136baf9b31bc8d963460 > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:17:10 +0200 > > imm: Allow admin-operations directly targeting an implementer/applier > [#799] > > This enhancement (#799) extends the scope of the existing OpenSAF API > for > administrative-operations such that it supports the direct invocation of > admin-operations on an implementer or applier. See the included patch > of: > osaf/services/saf/immsv/README for details. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/imma/imma_oi_api.c | 6 ---- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/README | 84 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 14 +++++++++++ > osaf/tools/safimm/immadm/imm_admin.c | 7 ++++- > tests/immsv/implementer/test_SaImmOiAdminOperation.c | 34 > +++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 5 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > A new test case is included as 'immoitest 5 13'. > > Manual testing is also possible using the tool 'immapplier' to set up > an OI or an applier; and the 'immadm' tool to invoke an admin operation. > > Set up an OI for example on SC1: > > immapplier -a MyOI OpensafImmTest > > The class name is only needed here tpo satisfy the immapplier tool. > You could uswe any class that does not have an existing OI, or use *any* > class and set up as an @pplier. > > Invoke an admin-op towards the OI. > Use the OI-name (or applier name) plus explicitly set admin-owner also > to be the same OI-name (or applier name): > > immadm -a MyOI -o 1 MyOI > > You can also try invoking bogus admin-operations directly on say the > saAmfService: > > immadm -a safAmfService -o 4711 safAmfService > AdminOwnerName == ImplementerName (safAmfService) - Could be direct > admin-op on OI > error - saImmOmAdminOperationInvoke_2 admin-op RETURNED: > SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM (7) > error-string: Admin operation not supported for safAmfService (0) > > This is a good test of the robustness of the OIs. > Some OIs are not so robust and crash only because they receive an unexpected > admin-operation. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Invoking an admin-opertion directly on OI or applier should result in the > admin-op > reaching that OI or applier. > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neel > (Ack from Zoran not mandatory) > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
