Hi Gary,
Ack
Thanks
Canh
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:39 PM
To: canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au; hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com;
nagen...@hasolutions.in
Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Review Request for osaf: ensure takeover_requests have
a lease [#2954]
Summary: osaf: ensure takeover_requests have a lease [#2954]
Review request for Ticket(s): 2954
Peer Reviewer(s): Canh, Hans, Nagu
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-2954
Base revision: 5bb2174a323a97f626ce354d553a1dc4d1673899
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/userid-2226215/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 y
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
Acknowledgement: Canh noticed this problem and did
the initial patches
revision 81650ab440f6b140fd4d5d485d13e573b4e070c0
Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:30:45 +0000
osaf: update etcd2 and sample plugins [#2954]
add timeout parameter to set and set_if_prev
revision f3a64996eeb739904c7d8e1abcf4f469eeea78b4
Author: Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 06:38:27 +0000
osaf: ensure takeover_requests have a lease [#2954]
In CreateTakeoverRequest(), if the initial attempt fails,
then the takeover_request is created without a lease.
Furthermore, when the takeover_request result is set,
it is being set without a lease, and the takeover_request
is not automatically removed.
Add <timeout> parameter to KeyValue::Set, and remove
default value for the <timeout> parameter to KeyValue::Create to
ensure a timeout is always set.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/osaf/consensus/consensus.cc | 10 ++++---
src/osaf/consensus/key_value.cc | 11 +++++---
src/osaf/consensus/key_value.h | 8 ++++--
src/osaf/consensus/plugins/etcd.plugin | 20 +++++++------
src/osaf/consensus/plugins/etcd3.plugin | 48
++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
src/osaf/consensus/plugins/sample.plugin | 16 +++++++----
6 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 34 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 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.
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
