Hi Canh, I am not sure this is a correct fix. Please answer my comments [Lennart]:
Test case logtest 2 49 creates some cfg app to test the limitation, then deleting these stream at the end. But the deleting fails due to timeout for waiting the implementer. After that test case logtest 6 42 need to create some cfg app and take the same stream name. That causes the creattion fail with SA_AIS_ERR_EXIST error. [Lennart] This part will make it possible to run the second test case (6 42) if the first test case (2 49) fails to delete the log streams it creates. Before the fix the streams was given the same name in both test cases. However if you should try to run test (2 49) again it will fail for the same reason as test case (6 42) failed so the problem is actually not solved. The patch updates stream name of 2 test case and update the retry of renaming file is 5s due to imm wait for implemeter 6s. [Lennart] Why is this changed? This is not a change in the test code. Originally timeout for renaming files was 8 seconds and you have changed that to 5 seconds. I cannot see the meaning of that. I assume that the log service deletes the log stream using immcfg (only for cfg streams) after this timeout even if the file could not be renamed and that the thinking behind this is that log stream deletion shall be done before timeout in immcfg. However, the immcfg tool is using immutil for handling try again loops and the timeout setting (see immutilWrapperProfile) is 60 seconds which is the recommended timeout time for initializing an in this case OM handle (also for OI handle). Note that changing the file renaming timeout may be considered NBC! Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Sent: den 1 augusti 2018 05:15 > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Vu Minh Nguyen > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Canh Van Truong > <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: fix logtest 6 42 fail [#2903] > > Summary: log: fix logtest 6 42 fail [#2903] > Review request for Ticket(s): 2903 > Peer Reviewer(s): Vu, Lennart > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** > Affected branch(es): develop,release > Development branch: ticket-2903 > Base revision: 7f6f6c0531a0f5e4f2b0dc1abf4bab6962a3d1a9 > 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 7489c44113ac179020ba554b0c76eaf9750ef75f > Author: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 10:02:21 +0700 > > log: fix logtest 6 42 fail [#2903] > > Test case logtest 2 49 creates some cfg app to test the limitation, then > deleting these stream at the end. But the deleting fails due to timeout for > waiting the implementer. After that test case logtest 6 42 need to create > some cfg app and take the same stream name. That causes the creattion fail > with SA_AIS_ERR_EXIST error. > > The patch updates stream name of 2 test case and update the retry of > renaming > file is 5s due to imm wait for implemeter 6s. > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > src/log/apitest/tet_saLogStreamOpen_2.c | 10 +++++----- > src/log/logd/lgs_stream.cc | 23 ++++++++++------------- > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > *** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC *** > > > 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
