Ack, Mathi. ----- [email protected] wrote:
> Summary: ntf: Change validation of SaNameT length, most not be > 255 > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #892 > Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected], > [email protected] > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > Affected branch(es): 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 > Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>> > > -------------------------------- > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > Related to #891 which fix a crash in the log server if SaNameT length > = 256 > > changeset ede460b1604b1f2e8bc37d5926f4e61dfff5d61e > Author: Lennart Lund <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:20:05 +0200 > > ntf: Fix validation of length for SaNameT [#892] > > Fix the NTF API to check if SaNameT length >= 256 instead of > 256. > length > must not have a value > 255. Check implemented for notifyingObject > and > notificationObject > > changeset dabc9691af8319e0f97972df2570e59d6774bac7 > Author: Lennart Lund <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:20:07 +0200 > > ntf: Add testcase for testing that 256 is not a valid length for > SaNameT > [#892] > > Test case added to tet_saNtfNotificationSend.c > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/libs/agents/saf/ntfa/ntfa_api.c | 2 +- > tests/ntfsv/tet_saNtfNotificationSend.c | 28 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > ntftest > > Note: > A new test case is added (# ntftest 8 12). > If the patch "ntf: Fix validation of length for SaNameT [#892]" is not > applied > this test will fail. > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > All tests shall pass > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from reviewers. > Note: Added Mathi as reviwer since this fix is related to #891 > > > 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
