Hi Canh When I was testing this I saw a lot of options for logtest that are not part of the help (-h) printout. Several of them does not even have a comment in the code telling what they are used f or and how to use them. This must be fixed! For each option it must be documented: - What the option is for - Why this option exist. Is it for example created to enable some specific test? - How to use it e.g. if it some other option also have to be used
It must also be documented in two places! 1. In the help (-h) printout. Here a short explanation may be enough 2. Somewhere in the code or README a full explanation including usage must be given. I suggest a "file comment" in the beginning of saflogtest.c. An alternative could be in the switch where each option has a case Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Lennart Lund > Sent: den 30 januari 2018 12:17 > To: 'Canh Van Truong' <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au>; Vu Minh Nguyen > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; srinivas.mangip...@oracle.com > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Canh Van Truong > <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: update saflogtest to limit > timeout when handling try again [#2764] > > Hi Canh > > Ack > Have a very minor comment, see attached .diff > > Thanks > Lennart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Canh Van Truong [mailto:canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au] > > Sent: den 29 januari 2018 06:06 > > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Vu Minh Nguyen > > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; srinivas.mangip...@oracle.com > > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Canh Van Truong > > <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: update saflogtest to limit > > timeout when handling try again [#2764] > > > > Summary: log: update saflogtest to limit timeout when handling try again > > [#2764] > > Review request for Ticket(s): 2764 > > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Vu, Srinivas > > Pull request to: Vu > > Affected branch(es): develop, release > > Development branch: ticket-2764 > > Base revision: 6e7d96275a7a9e8566df8552c3e47e4e2e87552b > > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/canht32/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 > > > > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > > --------------------------------------------- > > *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > > > revision ce7dd74a0de755d7e165818d1d9f7f8e6a075f71 > > Author: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:51:48 +0700 > > > > log: update saflogtest to limit timeout when handling try again [#2764] > > > > when saflogtest write log records and get error TRY_AGAIN in ack message, > it > > will handle to re-write until the error is not TRY_AGAIN. There is no > > limited > > timeout > > to handle try-again. The patch add timeout 10s for handling try-again. > > > > > > > > Complete diffstat: > > ------------------ > > src/log/apitest/saflogtest.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > -- > > ------- > > src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c | 48 +++++++++++------------ > > 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > > > > > Testing Commands: > > ----------------- > > *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** > > > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > > -------------------------- > > *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** > > > > > > Conditions of Submission: > > ------------------------- > > Ack from 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 ~/.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 Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
