Summary: pyosaf: refactor IMM samples to use new pyosaf utils [#2681]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2681
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans Nordeback, Srinivas Mangipudy, Quyen Dao
Pull request to: Hans Nordeback
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2681
Base revision: 3587648509bf14d692852d0ce4882377bc0831b5
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/zvoxdan/review

--------------------------------
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                 y
 Tests                   n
 Other                   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
revision 6ebcae4111c271b9e8ed8796ca2adf97b8a04724
Author: Danh Vo <danh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date:   Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:29:03 +0700

pyosaf: refactor IMM samples to use new pyosaf utils [#2681]



Complete diffstat:
------------------
 python/samples/caps                               |  69 +++++----
 python/samples/caps-inheritance-impl              |  78 ++++++----
 python/samples/imm-listener                       | 130 +++++++++-------
 python/samples/imm-listener-inheritance-impl      | 172 ++++++++++------------
 python/samples/immadm                             | 161 +++++++++++---------
 python/samples/immbase.py                         | 140 ++++++++++--------
 python/samples/immlist                            |  85 ++++++-----
 python/samples/interface-handler                  | 138 ++++++++++-------
 python/samples/interface-handler-inheritance-impl | 122 +++++++++------
 python/samples/ping-pong                          |  95 ++++++------
 python/samples/ping-pong-inheritance-impl         | 105 +++++++------
 python/samples/scale_opensaf                      | 111 +++++++++-----
 python/samples/time-reporter                      |  93 +++++++-----
 python/samples/time-reporter-inheritance-impl     | 107 +++++++-------
 python/samples/tones                              |  54 ++++---
 python/samples/tones-inheritance-impl             |  51 +++++--
 python/samples/users                              |  57 +++++--
 python/samples/users-inheritance-impl             |  60 +++++---
 18 files changed, 1065 insertions(+), 763 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-----------------



Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Samples work as expected


Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from one of 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
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel

Reply via email to