Hi Nguyen See my comments [Lennart] in the attached diff file. Can be applied on your review repository.
Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Nguyen Luu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: den 8 maj 2018 04:19 > To: Lennart Lund <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Nguyen Tran Khoi Luu > <[email protected]> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smfd: Remove duplicate DU, AU on > SU or comp level in one-step upgrade V2 [#2227] > > Summary: smfd: Remove duplicate DU/AU on SU/comp level in one-step > upgrade [#2227] > Review request for Ticket(s): 2227 > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart Lund, Syam Prasad Talluri > Pull request to: Lennart Lund > Affected branch(es): develop > Development branch: ticket-2227 > Base revision: c44d5c9f076bdfbc9bd5fded69bcbb30e65d0f14 > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/nguyenluu/review > > -------------------------------- > 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): > --------------------------------------------- > revision dae399f6d30c7cac041282d8d3c5510838fdc3cd > Author: Nguyen Luu <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 08:57:12 +0700 > > smfd: Remove duplicate DU/AU on SU/comp level in one-step upgrade > [#2227] > > This fix extends the previous one of #2209 which was on node level. > In particular, it is to eliminate any duplicate DU/AU on SU or component > level when merging forAddRemove and forModify/rolling procedures into a > single-step procedure for one-step upgrade execution mode. > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/smf/smfd/SmfUpgradeProcedure.cc | 83 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > 1. Install the AmfDemo sample app on PL-3, PL-4. > (could use the campaign_install_amfdemo.xml attached in the ticket; > amf_demo binary and clc script can be built and got from opensaf samples > dir) > 2. Run either or both of the attached > campaign_one_step_<su|comp>_level.xml > in one-step upgrade execution mode. > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > - The one-step upgrade should complete successfully. > (verify that the AmfDemo model changes designated in the campaign have > actually > taken effect) > - Another way to examine the result is to search for the upgrade runtime > objects > safSmf<Du|Au>=...,safSmfCampaign=...,safApp=safSmfService (before > committing the > upgrade campaign) and to look at the corresponding attributes > saSmf<Du|Au>ActedOn > => No duplicate DU/AU should be found. > (Without the fix, duplicate SU or component DU/AU would result) > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from the 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.
smf_2227_elunlen.diff
Description: smf_2227_elunlen.diff
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
