Hi Canh, Ack.
It is wanted is to make tests as fast as possible so any type of sleep should be avoided. In this case test time is not affected since there was a sleep in the original code as well so essentially you have just moved the sleep. Also there is probably not a simple way of handling this without a sleep. Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Sent: den 14 juni 2018 08:14 > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Vu Minh Nguyen > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Canh Van Truong > <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: fix saLogFilterSetCallbackT_03 > fails [#2875] > > Summary: log: fix saLogFilterSetCallbackT_03 fails [#2875] > Review request for Ticket(s): 2875 > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart, Vu > Pull request to: Vu > Affected branch(es): develop > Development branch: ticket-2875 > Base revision: 8d073a3a2c404f4947a45afbc482f6d176f90ecf > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/canht32/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): > --------------------------------------------- > *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > revision 86a719f65a401ab51b6b60e110dd97ea395080d8 > Author: Canh Van Truong <canh.v.tru...@dektech.com.au> > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:23:22 +0700 > > log: fix saLogFilterSetCallbackT_03 fails [#2875] > > When using immadm command to change saLogStreamSeverityFilter > attribute in > runtime object, the adminOperationCallback is called to update the attribute > value to imm then send the filter callback to user. sometimes the return of > command immadm come before the filter callback. if user poll the event > and dispatch all callbacks callback immediately after return immadm, the > missing callback may happen. > > This patch does SLEEP 1 second in test case before starting poll callback > events. > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/log/apitest/tet_saLogFilterSetCallbackT.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > *** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES *** > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > *** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS *** > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > *** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC *** > > > 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 ~/.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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
