Summary: ntf: ntftest to check longDnsAllowed to run or skip suite 35 [#2463]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2463
Peer Reviewer(s): Minh H Chau, Vu M Nguyen
Pull request to: Minh H Chau
Affected branch(es): develop, release
Development branch: ticket-2463
Base revision: 1867ef71083edfad88dc3a9970549e6d35085bd2
Personal repository: git://

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                   y
 Other                   n

Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
revision 46f41bc31bc2c25346916a816144ec7370da7373
Author: Nguyen Luu <>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2017 15:47:20 +0700

ntf: ntftest to check longDnsAllowed to run or skip suite 35 [#2463]

Suite 35 of ntftest requires long-dns support be enabled in the system.

If ntftest is run without any argument or specific test suite, suite 35
should be skipped if long-dns support is not enabled in the system.

Complete diffstat:
 src/ntf/apitest/test_ntf_imcn.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

Testing Commands:
Disble long-dns support in the system,
and run 'ntftest' without any argument.

Testing, Expected Results:
ntftest should pass and not run suite 35.

Conditions of Submission:
Ack from reviewers.

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 ~/.gitconfig file (i.e., 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.

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites,!
Opensaf-devel mailing list

Reply via email to