There is a print message there. fprintf(stderr, "logWriteLogCallbackT FAILED: wrong invocation\n");
I can add if you are referring to a missing message. Cheers, Mathi. ----- anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com wrote: > One comment below. > > mathi.naic...@oracle.com wrote: > > Summary: log: saflogger to return EXIT_FAILURE when > SaLogWriteLogCallbackT fails - v2 [#884] > > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #884 > > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart > > Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>> > > Affected branch(es): opensaf-4.3.x, 4.4.x, default > > 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): > > --------------------------------------------- > > Note: I'm not sure if BAD_OPERATION is the most suited error code in > > > the case of an mismatching invocation Id, but still iam unable to > think > > of anything else either! > > > Since saflogger is a tool, it could also print a message to stderr. > At least that could assist a human user. > > /AndersBj > > changeset 278424c712d38bca6859e9682d777e1d654daf26 > > Author: Mathivanan N.P.<mathi.naic...@oracle.com> > > Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:33:45 -0400 > > > > log: saflogger to return EXIT_FAILURE when SaLogWriteLogCallbackT > fails- v2 > > [#884] saflogger is not returning appropriate exit code to the > shell when > > SaLogWriteLogCallbackT fails either because of an error reported in > the > > callback or because of an invalid invocationId. The patch exits > with > > EXIT_FAILURE in these scenarios. > > > > changeset e5d39c2d858982f15dbd855828a36b3b688f492e > > Author: Mathivanan N.P.<mathi.naic...@oracle.com> > > Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 18:33:52 -0400 > > > > log: saflogtest to return EXIT_FAILURE when SaLogWriteLogCallbackT > fails- v1 > > [#884] saflogtest is not returning appropriate exit code to the > shell when > > SaLogWriteLogCallbackT fails either because of an error reported in > the > > callback or because of an invalid invocationId. The patch exits > with > > EXIT_FAILURE in these scenarios. > > > > > > Complete diffstat: > > ------------------ > > osaf/tools/saflog/saflogger/saf_logger.c | 4 ++-- > > tests/logsv/saflogtest.c | 4 ++-- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > Testing Commands: > > ----------------- > > Load LOG server such that it returns TRY_AGAIN for writes > continously. > > Run saflogger to write to an application stream. > > > > For saflogtest, it is a conceptual patch because saflogtest will > > continously try for TRY_AGAINs. > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > > -------------------------- > > Load LOG server such that it returns TRY_AGAIN for writes > continously. > > After trying for ten seconds, when the saflogger exits with > > TRY_AGAIN error. The shell exit code should be 1 for failure cases. > > > > > > Conditions of Submission: > > ------------------------- > > Ack from Lennart. > > > > 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 ~/.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. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to > find out: > > • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity > > • Requirements for releasing software faster > > • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensaf-devel mailing list > > Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
