Summary: pyosaf: Fix some issues in NTF utils [#2682]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2682
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans Nordeback, Srinivas Mangipudy
Pull request to: Hans Nordeback
Affected branch(es): develop, release
Development branch: ticket-2682
Base revision: 5a520b91f37ef51ddf6fbdd97928a002e2967e0c
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/nguyenluu/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 n
Tests n
Other y
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
revision fcec6c823a95bd8cf397edbe80600f3a129f6a87
Author: Nguyen Luu <nguyen.tk....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:18:40 +0700
pyosaf: Fix some issues in NTF utils [#2682]
agent.py:
- Update some default values for notificationSend.
- Correct NtfAgent.finalize() to handle BAD_HANDLE error code.
producer.py:
- Fix type conversion when assigning value of type SaNtfValueT.
- Keep the notification info for reuse after sending notification.
- Update the assigning of specificProblems for alarm notification.
- Harden 'None' value checking.
subscriber.py:
- Support handling of long-dn objects in subscribed/read notifications.
- Fix the parsing of additionalText and specificProblems in
subscribed/read notifications.
- Explicitly free the notification after parsing to avoid memory leak.
- Fix some semantic errors.
reader.py:
- Add the missing function to set search direction when creating
filter for notificationRead.
- Check filterAllocate result before initializing notificationRead.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
python/pyosaf/utils/ntf/__init__.py | 18 +++++++++++
python/pyosaf/utils/ntf/agent.py | 9 +++---
python/pyosaf/utils/ntf/producer.py | 59 ++++++++++++++---------------------
python/pyosaf/utils/ntf/reader.py | 29 +++++++++++------
python/pyosaf/utils/ntf/subscriber.py | 45 +++++++++++++++++---------
5 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from one of the 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
