Hi AndersBj, Reviewed and tested the patch. Ack.
/Neel. On Thursday 10 July 2014 06:09 PM, Anders Bjornerstedt wrote: > Summary: IMM: RDN limit of 64 characters made conditional on 'longDnsAllowed' > [#23] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #23 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neel; (Zoran) > Pull request to: > Affected branch(es): 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 y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 4e3a21c8b98795aa657857664f247b201f7b0a76 > Author: Anders Bjornerstedt <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:25:06 +0200 > > IMM: RDN limitation of 64 characters made conditional on > 'longDnsAllowed' > [#23] > > If the 'longDnsAllowed' attribute in the OpenSAF IMM service object > 'safRdn=immManagement,safApp=safImmService' is set to a non-zero value, > then > long DNs are allowed in the cluster. > > This patch fixes so that this config setting will then also disable the > 64 > byte limit on RDN length. > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > osaf/services/saf/immsv/immnd/ImmModel.cc | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Possible to test using a testclass and immcfg. > Install the testclass found at samples/immsv/immsv_test_classes.xml > > immcfg -f <hostfs>/immsv_test_classes.xml > > Then try to create an instance with an RDN longer than 64 bytes: > > immcfg -c TestClassConfig > testRdn=123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 > > > This should fail on all old systems. > It should also fail on a new system with default configuration of > longDnsAllowed == 0. > > If this default is changed to non-zero: > > immcfg -m -a longDnsAllowed=1 opensafImm=opensafImm,safApp=safImmService > > Then above create with RDN longer than 64 bytes should succeed. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > See above. > > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
