Summary: clm: clmtest does not handle SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN [#2634]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2634
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, AndersW
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2634
Base revision: a1834165152850d792823ef01bed473c96beb2e9
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 n
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests y
Other n
NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision e02f36d66fa74481b166372f2d49e390942b8801
Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:59:49 +0700
clm: add tryagain handle to clmtest [#2634]
Add tryagain to CLM APIs using C++ decorator.
revision 85c1e38a188c5ac4d2c6cb71c005e5428e66511a
Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:59:49 +0700
clm: clmtest does not handle SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN [#2634]
Convert CLM unit test to C++ to use the AIS decorator
for handling SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN.
Added Files:
------------
src/clm/apitest/clm_api_with_try_again.h
src/clm/apitest/clmtest.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmLongRdn.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmOiOps.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGetAsync.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGet.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNotificationFree.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrack.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrackStop.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmDispatch.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmFinalize.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmInitialize.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmResponse.cc
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmSelectionObjectGet.cc
Removed Files:
--------------
src/clm/apitest/clmtest.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmLongRdn.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmOiOps.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGetAsync.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGet.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNotificationFree.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrack.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrackStop.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmDispatch.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmFinalize.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmInitialize.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmResponse.c
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmSelectionObjectGet.c
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/clm/Makefile.am | 29 +-
src/clm/apitest/clm_api_with_try_again.h | 145 +++
src/clm/apitest/clmtest.c | 100 --
src/clm/apitest/clmtest.cc | 91 ++
src/clm/apitest/clmtest.h | 9 +-
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmLongRdn.c | 544 ----------
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmLongRdn.cc | 533 ++++++++++
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmOiOps.c | 166 ---
src/clm/apitest/tet_ClmOiOps.cc | 158 +++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGet.c | 210 ----
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGet.cc | 205 ++++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGetAsync.c | 274 -----
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNodeGetAsync.cc | 264 +++++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterNotificationFree.c | 94 --
.../apitest/tet_saClmClusterNotificationFree.cc | 90 ++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrack.c | 1097 --------------------
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrack.cc | 1064 +++++++++++++++++++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrackStop.c | 103 --
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmClusterTrackStop.cc | 95 ++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmDispatch.c | 107 --
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmDispatch.cc | 102 ++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmFinalize.c | 55 -
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmFinalize.cc | 52 +
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmInitialize.c | 191 ----
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmInitialize.cc | 180 ++++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmResponse.c | 270 -----
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmResponse.cc | 263 +++++
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmSelectionObjectGet.c | 80 --
src/clm/apitest/tet_saClmSelectionObjectGet.cc | 76 ++
src/osaf/apitest/util.h | 8 +
30 files changed, 3346 insertions(+), 3309 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
Start cluster with at least 3 nodes, then run `clmtest`
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Test PASS
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from peer reviewers
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
