Summary: tools/safntf : validate ntfsend options [#1069] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1069 Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected]; [email protected] Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): ALL 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 n OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other y Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset bcf3d700ced6994731389700602edfac21b9140c Author: [email protected] Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:30:45 +0530 tools/safntf : validate ntfsend options [#1069] This patch adds validation for following attributes: 1)probableCause, 2)eventType 3)perceivedSeverity/severity. 4)eventTime. Also ntfsubcribe prints event time in human readable form also. Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/tools/safntf/include/ntfclient.h | 1 + osaf/tools/safntf/ntfsend/ntfsend.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++- osaf/tools/safntf/src/ntfclient.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- tests and results: 1)ntfsend -p 75 invalid value for probableCause 2)ntfsend -p -1 invalid value for probableCause 3)ntfsend -s 75 invalid value for perceivedSeverity/severity 4)ntfsend -E 1233a invalid input for time 5)ntfsend -E 2a invalid input for time 6)ntfsend -E 1410932711331626000 Send Alarm Notification! NotificationId: 8473 ntfsubscribe -v === Sep 17 11:15:11 - Alarm === notificationID = 8473 subscriptionId = 1 eventType = SA_NTF_ALARM_COMMUNICATION notificationObject.length = 27 notificationObject = "default notification object" notifyingObject.length = 24 notifyingObject = "default notifying object" notificationClassId = 193.0.0 (0x0) eventTime = 1410932711331626000 (Wed Sep 17 11:15:11 IST 2014) additionalText = "default additional text" probableCause = SA_NTF_BANDWIDTH_REDUCED perceivedSeverity = SA_NTF_SEVERITY_WARNING Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- PASS Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from any reviewer. Arch Built Started Linux distro ------------------------------------------- mips n n mips64 n n x86 n n x86_64 y y 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
