Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: Provide validation for config changes on imm service objects [#951]

[Neelakanta R. <red...@or...>]

HI AndersBj,

Reviewed and tested the patch.
Ack.

/Neel.

On Wednesday 09 July 2014 03:18 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote:
> Summary: imm: Provide validation for config changes on imm service objects [#951]
> Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 951
> Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran
> Pull request to:
> Affected branch(es): 4.3; 4.4; default(4.5)
> Development branch:
>
> --------------------------------
> 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                   n
>
>
> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> changeset 015ee3f5d468ff8ec89667554aef729b34a76cc1
> Author:	Anders Bjornerstedt <and...@er...>
> Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:27:19 +0200
>
> 	imm: Provide validation for config changes on imm service objects [#951]
>
> 	The six validation cases described in the ticket are implemented by this
> 	changeset:
>
> 	For the object 'opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService':
>
> 	1) 0PBE reject delete of the object.
>          2) 0PBE reject creates using class 'OpensafImm'
>          (All modifications to current config attributes are allowed after #934)
>          (For 1PBE and 2PBE, the validation for this object is handled by the PBE-OI).
>
> 	For the object 'safRdn=immManagement,safApp=safImmService':
>
> 	3) Reject delete of the object.
>          4) Reject create using class 'SaImmMngt'
>          5) Validate modifications to attribute 'saImmRepositoryInit'
>          6) Reject use/modification of 'saImmOiTimeout'(not supported).
>
>
> The patch sent for review is for default(4.5) and does not apply
> cleanly on 4.3 or 4.4. I have patches for 4.3 and 4.4 that can
> be provided on request.
>
> When adding validations which are always a form of restriction, there is always
> the issue of backwards compatibility. The only possible issue that I could arise
> is if some application/script is currently updating the 'saImmOiTimeout' value.
> That is a futile operation that has no effect currently since the imm is not
> honoring that config attribute (see ticket #16 for details on why).
> I tink this is unlikely and the application that is doing such modifications is
> probably well served by adjusting to the reality of the attribute not working.
> In any case, a failure to update this attribute should not cause any major problem
> unless the application is designed to be extremely brittle/fragile.
>
>
> Complete diffstat:
> ------------------
>   osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc |  94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>   1 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>
> Testing Commands:
> -----------------
> The above 6 validation cases should work.
>
>
> Testing, Expected Results:
> --------------------------
> An attempt to violate any of the 6 cases should result in that ccb-operation
> being rejected (BAD_OPERATION).
>
>
> Conditions of Submission:
> -------------------------
> Ack from Neel
>
>
> 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.
>