Summary: pyosaf: Make Ccb class work with Python with statements [#1419]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1419
Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected]
Pull request to: [email protected]
Affected branch(es): 4.7.x
Development branch: opensaf-staging

--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
This patch also applies to #1418, as it makes the finalization of
a Ccb instance explicit. On finalization, the Ccb instance releases
all objects affected by it.

changeset 4d68bfbe60d8fcd7ca4a18b7e0443b61ad641c20
Author: Johan Mårtensson <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:39:21 +0200

        pyosaf: Make Ccb class work with Python with statements [#1419]

        Make the Ccb class work with the with statement in Python. The CCB will 
be
        automatically applied when the with statement is exited successfully and
        aborted if an exception is raised before during the with statement.

        Verify by using Ccb in with:

with Ccb() as ccb:
    ccb.create(...)
    ccb.delete(...)

         # Apply is automatically done when with is exited


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 python/pyosaf/utils/immom/ccb.py |  25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
Verify with the steps described in the commit message.


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
 <<PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS>>


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
 <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>>


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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to