On 05-Feb-15 4:32 PM, Gary Lee wrote: > Hi > > I have a patch that should do something similar. I tried to make the > code a little simpler by using a set. > I have gone quickly through the patch. It refactors the code by converting AVD_AMF_NG to class. Please float the patch officially as part of refactoring ticket #1142. I will refloat the patch for #646 on top of that.
Thanks Praveen, > Thanks > Gary > > On 4 February 2015 at 12:44, <praveen.malv...@oracle.com > <mailto:praveen.malv...@oracle.com>> wrote: > > Summary: amfd: do not allow duplicate addition of node in a > nodegroup [#646] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #646 > Peer Reviewer(s): Hans N., Nagendra. > 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 y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 5484bdea288180e339419d63f3edac539bb16c6a > Author: praveen.malv...@oracle.com <mailto:praveen.malv...@oracle.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 07:10:26 +0530 > > amfd: do not allow duplicate addition of node in a > nodegroup [#646] > > At present a node can be added in a nodegroup many times. > > AMF is not checking if node is already present in > saAmfNGNodeList of > nodegroup and hence not rejecting the ccb operation. > > Patch adds the check to avoid duplicate addition of a node > in a nodegroup. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/amf/amfd/nodegroup.cc | 33 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Try to add a node in a nodegroup multiple times. > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > AMF will reject the operation on multiple additions. > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, > sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, > is your > hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought > leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. > Take a > look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Opensaf-devel mailing list > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
