Summary: imm: classify abort error strings and prefix existing error strings [#744] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 744 Peer Reviewer(s): Anders, Neelakanta, Hung Pull request to: Zoran Affected branch(es): default(4.7) Development branch: default(4.7)
-------------------------------- 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 b4e9607716953b582020ed9166298d7b36d403a8 Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:21:17 +0200 imm: classify abort error strings and prefix existing error strings [#744] The patch set prefix "IMM:" to all error string that come from IMM. Based on CCB abort type (resource or validation abort), error strings are prefixed with "IMM: Resource abort:" or "IMM: Validation abort:" Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.hh | 5 +++++ osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_evt.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/immnd_init.h | 6 ++++++ 4 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Test IMM that IMM returns correct error strings. Testing should be mostly focused on testing error strings when CCB is aborted. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- Ack from Neelakanta, Hung and Anders 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog! Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools in one place. SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
