Hi AndersBj, Reviewed the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On Tuesday 16 September 2014 09:18 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > 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
