Thanks Lennart, I will check these functions and move some of them if needed.
Regards, Canh -----Original Message----- From: Lennart Lund [mailto:lennart.l...@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:38 PM To: Canh Van Truong; mahesh.va...@oracle.com; Vu Minh Nguyen Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: improve test cases for log service [#1913] V2 Hi Canh Ack Of course there is always more that can be done but this is a good increment and do clean up a number of things. I saw that there are some utility functions in logtest.c and it may be good to move some of them to the new utility file? But that I leave to you to decide. Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Canh Van Truong [mailto:canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au] > Sent: den 13 oktober 2016 08:52 > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; mahesh.va...@oracle.com; > Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for log: improve test cases for > log service [#1913] V2 > > Summary: log: improve test cases for log service [#1913] V2 Review > request for Trac Ticket(s): #1913 Peer Reviewer(s): Vu, Lennart, > Mahesh Pull request to: Vu Affected branch(es): default Development > branch: default > > -------------------------------- > 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 > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > <<EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE>> > > changeset 2fd2c08225292a0afe38a583bf71fbde137909a8 > Author: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 18:55:51 +0700 > > log: improve test cases for log service [#1913] > > The patch fixes to improve following cases: > > 1) The APIs may return TRY_AGAIN, this may not be a fault. Writing > some > wrapper functions here to handle TRY_AGAIN case for log API. > > 2) Remove abort (safassert) in test case and handle it as test case > failed. > > 3) Some test cases (in testsuite 4) have dependence on other test > cases. > Make them independency. > > 4) Some test cases (in testsuite 4, 5, 6) change setting such as IMM > attributes values and don't restore them back to previous. Get the > attributes values before changing attributes, then restore its to > previous > values at end of test cases. > > 5) Some test cases in testsuite 6 change attributes base on the > present > value of logMaxLogrecsize without read the present value of its. > They use > constanst values (=1024). Changing to read logMaxLogrecsize value and > use > it. > > > Added Files: > ------------ > tests/logsv/logutil.c > tests/logsv/logutil.h > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > tests/logsv/Makefile.am | 1 + > tests/logsv/logtest.c | 12 +- > tests/logsv/logtest.h | 5 +- > tests/logsv/logutil.c | 129 ++++ > tests/logsv/logutil.h | 51 + > tests/logsv/tet_LogOiOps.c | 2285 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > --- > tests/logsv/tet_Log_recov.c | 2 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogDispatch.c | 9 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogFinalize.c | 11 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogInitialize.c | 8 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogLimitGet.c | 19 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogSelectionObjectGet.c | 13 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogStreamClose.c | 21 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogStreamOpenAsync_2.c | 14 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogStreamOpen_2.c | 541 ++++++++++------ > tests/logsv/tet_saLogWriteLog.c | 21 +- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogWriteLogAsync.c | 478 +++++--------- > tests/logsv/tet_saLogWriteLogCallbackT.c | 116 ++- > 18 files changed, 2229 insertions(+), 1507 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Re-run all test cases > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > All test cases passed > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from 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 ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, 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
