[devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smfd: get nodes for activation without warning if entity was a node [#960]

[Rafael O. <raf...@er...>]

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.