Summary: ntfd: Add cached alarms for cold sync [#2735] Review request for Ticket(s): 2735 Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Srinivas, Canh Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** Affected branch(es): develop Development branch: ticket-2735 Base revision: 60f929be8d7414257ecf90461f923b6f40ed3ac7 Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/review
-------------------------------- 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 NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** revision 725139c5df3cc0e208679f18a73ef874c5302755 Author: Minh Chau <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 17:28:25 +1100 ntftest: Add new test case for cold sync of cached alarms [#2735] Patch add new test case of new suite 41 to test saNtfNotificationReadNext after the cold sync of cached alarm revision 2e45ed8d798857c0613954a77f7b7169ca74f3bf Author: Minh Chau <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:35:19 +1100 ntfd: Add cached alarms for cold sync [#2735] Patch adds the alarm and security alarm notifications to cold sync towards the standby NTFD, increase mbcsv version to avoid confusion with old NTFD Added Files: ------------ src/ntf/apitest/tet_coldsync.c Complete diffstat: ------------------ src/ntf/Makefile.am | 3 +- src/ntf/apitest/tet_coldsync.c | 211 ++++++++++++++++++++++ src/ntf/apitest/tet_ntf.h | 2 + src/ntf/apitest/tet_ntf_common.c | 97 +++++++++- src/ntf/apitest/tet_ntf_common.h | 2 + src/ntf/apitest/tet_ntf_main.c | 3 + src/ntf/apitest/tet_scOutage_reinitializeHandle.c | 77 +------- src/ntf/ntfd/NtfAdmin.cc | 33 +++- src/ntf/ntfd/NtfAdmin.h | 3 + src/ntf/ntfd/NtfLogger.cc | 16 ++ src/ntf/ntfd/NtfLogger.h | 1 + src/ntf/ntfd/NtfNotification.cc | 15 ++ src/ntf/ntfd/NtfNotification.h | 1 + src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_com.c | 11 ++ src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_com.h | 5 + src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mbcsv.c | 45 ++++- src/ntf/ntfd/ntfs_mbcsv.h | 3 +- 17 files changed, 446 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Run legacy ntftest and new test of suite 41 Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- All pass 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. user.name, user.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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
