Summary: log: fix fail to delete appstream post headless when controllers come 
back [#1877]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1877
Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Mahesh
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): 5.0, default
Development branch: default

--------------------------------
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):
---------------------------------------------
 <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>>

changeset 3d84f2074286f9c02100cd1bf2ec648b33420f62
Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <[email protected]>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:52:03 +0700

        log: fix fail to delete appstream post headless when controllers come 
back
        [#1877]

        logsv supposed there were only three well-known config streams at logsv
        startup. But this is not true when headless mode is enabled, so the 
stream
        id was wrongly assigned to streams.

        One more thing, with headless enabled, app streams can be found at 
startup
        and app stream DN can be named not under `safApp=safLogService`. So,
        searching config objects under the root `safApp=safLogService` could 
miss
        the config app streams. e.g: app stream with DN "safLgStrCfg=Test"

        This patch fix the problem and also add new test suite #12 to test if
        created app stream can be deleted after headless.


Complete diffstat:
------------------
 osaf/services/saf/logsv/lgs/lgs_imm.cc |  54 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 tests/logsv/logtest.c                  |   2 ++
 tests/logsv/logtest.h                  |   1 +
 tests/logsv/tet_Log_recov.c            |  57 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
 Run new added test suite.
 logtest -v -e 12


Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
 All test PASS


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
 Get ack from peer reviewers


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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are 
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow, 
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity 
planning reports. https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/305295220;132659582;e
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to