Hi Vu
STOP!
I have done some more investigations around this and it seems as if this fix
shall not be done at all!
I have looked in the specifications (AIS and PR) and cannot find anything
saying that Booleans should be handled according to this ticket. I have also
checked old code before #1398 where the first SMF refactoring using immccb was
done and cannot find any code converting "true"/"false" to numeric IMM values
for Boolean. I have also talked to Jonas and Faisal and Faisal was sure of that
this has never been handled like this.
My conclusion is that this ticket is most likely invalid and this fix is NBC.
So DO NOT PUSH! for now. However I will do some more investigations.
If and only if any fixes at all should be done:
Do the fixes in the SMF code. See my suggestion for how to do that in my
previous reply.
If the SMF way to interpret the strings "true" and "false" is an SMF thing not
something that has to do with the information model The immccb is a "pure"
IMM CCB handler and shall not be seen as a part of SMF and shall stay that way.
See immccb as something that belongs to "src/base" and that could be used in
more services than SMF. There is no reason this fix cannot be done just as easy
in the SMF code and since this is SMF handling of the strings "true" and
"false".
To implement this fix in immccb should be seen the same way as if an IMM ticket
was written and it was implemented in the IMM service! That would be ridiculous.
See also my comments below.
Thanks
Lennart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> Sent: den 31 juli 2018 03:53
> To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: fix numberic attribute
> types not accept boolean values [#2902]
>
> Hi Lennart,
>
> You are right that IMM model does not support Boolean type, but what we
> were
> talking here is about Boolean value.
[Lennart] Yes but this is an SMF definition and has nothing to do with IMM so
no IMM handler should handle this
>
> In the C programming language, `true`/`false` boolean value are macro that
> would expand to 1 and 0 respectively.
> Therefore, it should be valid to assign these values to numeric data types
> and should be located in immccb, I think.
[Lennart] I do not agree. We are not talking about the any programming language
but the IMM model and campaign files
>
> int64_values.attribute_name = "SaInt64TValues";
> int64_values.value_type = SA_IMM_ATTR_SAINT64T;
> int64_values.AddValue(std::to_string(1)); // Should be the same as
> int64_values.AddValue("true");
[Lennart] No. "1" != "true" and "true" is not a numeric value. The immccb does
not and shall not have any dependencies to SMF
>
> Regards, Vu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:55 PM
> > To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Vu Minh Nguyen
> > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Lennart Lund
> > <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: fix numberic attribute
> > types not accept boolean values [#2902]
> >
> > Hi Vu
> >
> > The fix is done in the wrong place. The model modifier (immccb) handles
> IMM
> > according to IMM rules and Boolean does not exist there. Converting text
> > strings "true" and "false" to numeric 1 and 0 is an SMF special case. The
> > model modifier shall be kept completely independent of SMF.
> > The fix shall be done in the SMF code instead and can be done when data
> for
> > a CCB is stored.
> > It could for example be done in the SmfImmAttribute class (see file
> > SmfImmOperation.h):
> > If m_type (set using method SetAttributeType()) is a numeric type and
> data
> is
> > "true" or "false" then in method AddAttributeValue() the conversion to "1"
> or
> > "0" can be done.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Lennart
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > > Sent: den 30 juli 2018 10:38
> > > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> > > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Vu Minh Nguyen
> > > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: fix numberic attribute
> types
> > > not accept boolean values [#2902]
> > >
> > > Summary: smf: fix numberic attribute types not accept boolean values
> > > [#2902]
> > > Review request for Ticket(s): 2902
> > > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart
> > > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
> > > Affected branch(es): develop
> > > Development branch: ticket-2902
> > > Base revision: ede5191f9caf41836a65acaffd648e7ac0b00590
> > > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/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 2d2cf2d1bc91e3204c614cb37e1edbf461b2b240
> > > Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:23:54 +0700
> > >
> > > smf: fix numberic attribute types not accept boolean values [#2902]
> > >
> > > This patch ensures that giving boolean value to numeric attribute
> > > types must be accepted.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Complete diffstat:
> > > ------------------
> > > src/smf/smfd/imm_modify_config/attribute.cc | 20 ++++++++++++++---
> ---
> > > src/smf/smfd/imm_modify_demo/test_ccbhdl.cc | 12 +++++++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Testing Commands:
> > > -----------------
> > > Run test_ccbhdl
> > >
> > >
> > > Testing, Expected Results:
> > > --------------------------
> > > No failure
> > >
> > >
> > > Conditions of Submission:
> > > -------------------------
> > > Ack from Lennart
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
