Summary: imm: ccbCreate - Fix expression for appending PRTA default values to ccb-create-callback [#1083] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1083 Peer Reviewer(s): Neel Pull request to: Affected branch(es): 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; defaut(4.6) 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): --------------------------------------------- changeset 8d97fb57dc57b0be9dcf51eca0cc1ab6c6ea4072 Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:41:42 +0200 imm: ccbCreate - Fix expression for appending PRTA default values to ccb- create-callback [#1083] The incorrect expression resulted in the omission of appending to the ccb- create-oi-callback, the default values for persistent runtime attributes that (a) where not explicitly assigned in the ccb-object create request; and (b) did have a default value defined. Yes it is alowed to set the value for PRTAs in a config object, but only when the config object is created. Check the SAF spec. The default was assigned in the imm-ram-db, but did not reach the OI or appliers, including the PBE-OI and the special appliers (imcn). The PBE (persistence) was actually no problem since a restart from the PBE would again not assign these values resulting in the defaults being set again in imm-ram. If this bug caused any problem it could have been the omission to include the attribute-value(default) for PRTAs in a ccb-create-callback to special applier/imcn. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Requires a config class with some persistent rutnime attributes with default defined. Set up an applier monitoring the class. Create an instance of the class but dont assign any value to any PRTAs. Commit the transaction. Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Before this patch the applier will get the create callback but it will not include the PRTA values. With this patch the callback to the applier should include the PRTA's with default value set. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Neel 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce. Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
