Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions [#2535]

2017-08-03 Thread A V Mahesh 

Hi Anders Widell ,

I will review and ACK by EOD.

-AVM

On 8/3/2017 2:08 PM, Anders Widell wrote:

Hi Mahesh!

I intend to push this tomorrow unless there are any comments.

thanks,

Anders Widell


On 07/28/2017 10:15 AM, Anders Widell wrote:
Summary: base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average 
functions [#2535]

Review request for Ticket(s): 2535
Peer Reviewer(s): Mahesh
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2535
Base revision: ac580c6389d5fe3b3f5e0300947957d2da338ba1
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/anders-w/review


Impacted area   Impact y/n

  Docsn
  Build systemn
  RPM/packaging   n
  Configuration files n
  Startup scripts n
  SAF servicesn
  OpenSAF servicesn
  Core libraries  y
  Samples n
  Tests   n
  Other   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-

revision 10a76da49f211674579fe5e03fe9d72c44e63709
Author:Anders Widell 
Date:Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:08:08 +0200

base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions [#2535]

The osaf_get_boot_time function returns the time stamp when the node 
was booted.
The osaf_timespec_average function returns the average of two time 
stamps.




Added Files:

  src/base/tests/osaf_get_boot_time_test.cc
  src/base/tests/osaf_timespec_average_test.cc


Complete diffstat:
--
  src/base/Makefile.am |  12 ++-
  src/base/osaf_time.c |  24 +
  src/base/osaf_time.h |  40 +++
  src/base/tests/mock_clock_gettime.cc |  20 
  src/base/tests/mock_clock_gettime.h  |   3 +
  src/base/tests/osaf_get_boot_time_test.cc|  77 ++
  src/base/tests/osaf_timespec_average_test.cc | 152 
+++

  7 files changed, 323 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-

make check


Testing, Expected Results:
--

unit tests shall pass


Conditions of Submission:
-

Ack from reviewer(s) or on 2017-08-04


Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  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

Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions [#2535]

2017-08-03 Thread Anders Widell 

Hi Mahesh!

I intend to push this tomorrow unless there are any comments.

thanks,

Anders Widell


On 07/28/2017 10:15 AM, Anders Widell wrote:

Summary: base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions 
[#2535]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2535
Peer Reviewer(s): Mahesh
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2535
Base revision: ac580c6389d5fe3b3f5e0300947957d2da338ba1
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/anders-w/review


Impacted area   Impact y/n

  Docsn
  Build systemn
  RPM/packaging   n
  Configuration files n
  Startup scripts n
  SAF servicesn
  OpenSAF servicesn
  Core libraries  y
  Samples n
  Tests   n
  Other   n


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
-

revision 10a76da49f211674579fe5e03fe9d72c44e63709
Author: Anders Widell 
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:08:08 +0200

base: Add osaf_get_boot_time and osaf_timespec_average functions [#2535]

The osaf_get_boot_time function returns the time stamp when the node was booted.
The osaf_timespec_average function returns the average of two time stamps.



Added Files:

  src/base/tests/osaf_get_boot_time_test.cc
  src/base/tests/osaf_timespec_average_test.cc


Complete diffstat:
--
  src/base/Makefile.am |  12 ++-
  src/base/osaf_time.c |  24 +
  src/base/osaf_time.h |  40 +++
  src/base/tests/mock_clock_gettime.cc |  20 
  src/base/tests/mock_clock_gettime.h  |   3 +
  src/base/tests/osaf_get_boot_time_test.cc|  77 ++
  src/base/tests/osaf_timespec_average_test.cc | 152 +++
  7 files changed, 323 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


Testing Commands:
-

make check


Testing, Expected Results:
--

unit tests shall pass


Conditions of Submission:
-

Ack from reviewer(s) or on 2017-08-04


Arch  Built StartedLinux distro
---
mipsn  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