Hi, Ack with comments. See tag [Lennart] in attached diff. Can be applied on top of the review repository
Also, Below is a test for reproducing the problem described. A test should be added to immtest. As a rule all fixes shall also have a test case if possible Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Danh Vo [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 8 maj 2018 11:35 > To: [email protected]; Hans Nordebäck > <[email protected]>; Zoran Milinkovic > <[email protected]>; Anders Widell > <[email protected]>; Lennart Lund <[email protected]>; > Vu Minh Nguyen <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Danh Cong Vo > <[email protected]> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: fix PBE terminated when > adding data with duplicated values [#2422] > > Summary: imm: fix PBE terminated when adding data with duplicated values > [#2422] > Review request for Ticket(s): 2422 > Peer Reviewer(s): Ravi, Anders, Hans, Lennart, Vu > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** > Affected branch(es): develop > Development branch: ticket-2422 > Base revision: c44d5c9f076bdfbc9bd5fded69bcbb30e65d0f14 > 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 y > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > revision 25b12ef05f6d120f440dbbd6232ddeec041a80af > Author: Danh Vo <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:16:00 +0700 > > imm: fix PBE terminated when adding data with duplicated values [#2422] > > When adding value set which has duplicated values into non-pure > runtime attribute (cached or persistent), the first loop (doIt=0) does > not validate in the correct way. It tries to detect duplicated > values between current values and provided values without updating > current values. So the current values remain the old values and > validation just checks on that value set. Duplicated values cannot be > dectected in provided values by current values. As a result, err is > still SA_AIS_OK even though provided values are duplicated in the first > loop. > > This fix also increases performance for the previous fix. The validation > should be performed in first loop (doIt=0) instead of both loops. > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/imm/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > --------- > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** > Create Test class as below: > <class name="Test"> > <category>SA_CONFIG</category> > <rdn> > <name>test</name> > <type>SA_STRING_T</type> > <category>SA_CONFIG</category> > <flag>SA_INITIALIZED</flag> > </rdn> > <attr> > <name>list</name> > <type>SA_UINT32_T</type> > <category>SA_RUNTIME</category> > <flag>SA_CACHED</flag> > <flag>SA_PERSISTENT</flag> > <flag>SA_MULTI_VALUE</flag> > <flag>SA_NO_DUPLICATES</flag> > </attr> > </class> > Create object test=1 by command: > immcfg -c Test test=1 > Create an implementer which has: > - saImmOiRtAttrUpdateCallback returns SA_AIS_OK. > - saImmOiAdminOperationCallback does saImmOiRtObjectUpdate_2() > command to > update "list" attribute with multiple values. Ex: 9 9 10 > Perform admin operation on test=1 by command: > immadm -o 1 test=1 > See the result if it is expected. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** > 2018-05-08 14:16:38.433 SC-1 2422: Add 9 9 10 into "list" attribute > 2018-05-08 14:16:38.437 SC-1 osafimmnd[214]: NO ERR_INVALID_PARAM: > multivalued attr 'list' with NO_DUPLICATES yet duplicate values provided in > rta-update call. Object:'test=1'. > 2018-05-08 14:16:38.437 SC-1 osafimmnd[214]: WA Got error on non local rt > object update err: 7 > 2018-05-08 14:16:38.437 SC-1 2422: saImmOiRtObjectUpdate_2 return code: 7 > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > *** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC *** > 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.
imm_2422_comments.diff
Description: imm_2422_comments.diff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
