[devel] [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for pyosaf: Allow SaStringT compare with str by default [#3351]

[thien.m.huynh <thi...@de...>]

Summary: pyosaf: Allow SaStringT compare with str by default [#3351]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3351
Peer Reviewer(s): Thang, Dat
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3351
Base revision: 7b80b26c5ac19135820854a6edc6d50a5dea82dc
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/thienhuynh/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          n
 Samples                 n
 Tests                   n
 Other                   y


Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***

revision 2793a552e9f94419fc72d58ccb767c2e0ce7ebd6
Author:	thien.m.huynh <thi...@de...>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:30:57 +0700

pyosaf: Allow SaStringT compare with str by default [#3351]

SaStringT class is introduced in previous commit support python3.
Default SaStringT cannot compare with other type.

This commit is to allow compare with str class if without casting



Complete diffstat:
------------------
 python/pyosaf/saAis.py | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)


Testing Commands:
-----------------
N/A

Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
N/A

Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
ACK from reviewers


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.