From: Rafael O. <raf...@er...> - 2015-05-20 13:35:08
|
Summary: smfd: get nodes for activation without warning if entity was a node [#960] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 960 Peer Reviewer(s): bertil, ingvar Pull request to: ingvar Affected branch(es): default (4.7) Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>> -------------------------------- Impacted area Impact y/n -------------------------------- Docs n Build system n RPM/packaging n Configuration files n Startup scripts n SAF services y OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests n Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset e909395c1cd1357d971b127c68ad3a5d0f1c173a Author: Rafael Odzakow <raf...@er...> Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 10:27:25 +0200 smfd: get nodes for activation without warning if entity was a node [#960] Symptom: Notice in system log saying that no nodes found for DN. This message would show when using nodes in activation actedOn tag in a campaign. Analysis: Just a harmless notice, nothing else seems to go wrong. Even the multiple procedures went fine Solution: Getting nodes for activation no longer produces warnings if the entity specified in the activation is a node. The used function returns a empty string if input DN is not of expected class Complete diffstat: ------------------ osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc | 8 +++++++- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Run a SingleStep campaign with a activation-unit that is a node <activationUnit> <actedOn> <byName objectDN="safAmfNode=SC-1,safAmfCluster=myAmfCluster"/> Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- Should pass and no warnings display about missing nodes Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- ACK from bertil and ingvar 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. |