Summary: imm: Provide validation for config changes on imm service objects
[#951]
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 951
Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; Zoran
Pull request to:
Affected branch(es): 4.3; 4.4; default(4.5)
Development branch:
--------------------------------
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 n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
changeset 015ee3f5d468ff8ec89667554aef729b34a76cc1
Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <anders.bjornerst...@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:27:19 +0200
imm: Provide validation for config changes on imm service objects [#951]
The six validation cases described in the ticket are implemented by this
changeset:
For the object 'opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService':
1) 0PBE reject delete of the object.
2) 0PBE reject creates using class 'OpensafImm'
(All modifications to current config attributes are allowed after #934)
(For 1PBE and 2PBE, the validation for this object is handled by the
PBE-OI).
For the object 'safRdn=immManagement,safApp=safImmService':
3) Reject delete of the object.
4) Reject create using class 'SaImmMngt'
5) Validate modifications to attribute 'saImmRepositoryInit'
6) Reject use/modification of 'saImmOiTimeout'(not supported).
The patch sent for review is for default(4.5) and does not apply
cleanly on 4.3 or 4.4. I have patches for 4.3 and 4.4 that can
be provided on request.
When adding validations which are always a form of restriction, there is always
the issue of backwards compatibility. The only possible issue that I could arise
is if some application/script is currently updating the 'saImmOiTimeout' value.
That is a futile operation that has no effect currently since the imm is not
honoring that config attribute (see ticket #16 for details on why).
I tink this is unlikely and the application that is doing such modifications is
probably well served by adjusting to the reality of the attribute not working.
In any case, a failure to update this attribute should not cause any major
problem
unless the application is designed to be extremely brittle/fragile.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 94
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
The above 6 validation cases should work.
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
An attempt to violate any of the 6 cases should result in that ccb-operation
being rejected (BAD_OPERATION).
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack from Neel
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
