Summary: pyosaf: Add support for extended Ckpt api [#802] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): <<IF ANY LIST THE #>> Peer Reviewer(s): Hans N Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> Affected branch(es): 4.4 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 n OpenSAF services n Core libraries n Samples n Tests y Other n Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): --------------------------------------------- changeset 60d83a7824b9bce437e7ec6365d0b7f42da6c164 Author: [email protected] Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:48:28 +0100 pyosaf: Add support for extended Ckpt api [#802] Extended Ckpt api means that a user can enable a callback to be sent by the ckpt service when a section is created, deleted and written to. Complete diffstat: ------------------ python/pyosaf/saCkpt.py | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) Testing Commands: ----------------- Changes tested in Osaftest environment. python -m osaftest.tests.ckpt.tc001.test python -m osaftest.tests.ckpt.tc002.test python -m osaftest.tests.ckpt.tc003.test python -m osaftest.tests.ckpt.tc004.test Testing, Expected Results: -------------------------- all TC:s passed. Conditions of Submission: ------------------------- ack from reviewer(s) 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subversion Kills Productivity. Get off Subversion & Make the Move to Perforce. With Perforce, you get hassle-free workflows. Merge that actually works. Faster operations. Version large binaries. Built-in WAN optimization and the freedom to use Git, Perforce or both. Make the move to Perforce. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=122218951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
