Hi Lennart, When we dump the whole database using immdump, system attributes will be written to both class/object tags. And when we dump one specific class data, system attributes only goes with class tags in the target file.
I am not so sure why and when user comes up with that model file: having system attribute in object tags, but not in class tags. Probably they has merged the object data which has been extracted from dump file with their manually created class model. But for any case, checking about whether system attributes does exist in class tags as immload and imm import are doing is totally not necessary since all system attributes are ignored at IMMA level when creating IMM class. Regards, Vu > -----Original Message----- > From: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 7:17 PM > To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Hans Nordebäck > <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>; Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Vu Minh Nguyen > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: failed to load and import > objects having system attributes in [#2897] V2 > > Hi Vu, > > This ticket is a defect ticket but is this a defect? All SaImmAttr... are owned > and given values by IMM itself so it seems logical that these attributes cannot > be set or changed directly by a user including using an IMM configuration > (.xml) file. The attributes cannot be changed with immcfg command and they > are not presented when using immlist -c <class name> > Can you inform where it is specified/documented that creating an object as in > the model.xml shall be possible? > > Thanks > Lennart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > > Sent: den 25 juli 2018 12:11 > > To: Hans Nordebäck <hans.nordeb...@ericsson.com>; Lennart Lund > > <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Gary Lee <gary....@dektech.com.au> > > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Vu Minh Nguyen > > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for imm: failed to load and import > > objects having system attributes in [#2897] V2 > > > > Summary: imm: failed to load/import objects having system attributes in > > [#2897] > > Review request for Ticket(s): 2897 > > Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Lennart, Gary > > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE *** > > Affected branch(es): develop > > Development branch: ticket-2897 > > Base revision: b04d3b63561c9097026920ba4dd2989b97c49b5d > > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/winhvu/review > > > > -------------------------------- > > 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 y > > > > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > > --------------------------------------------- > > *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > > > revision dd7566c0bb4eeb36e5ef5e93b1221d21e9da7f85 > > Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au> > > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 17:05:19 +0700 > > > > imm: failed to load/import objects having system attributes in [#2897] > > > > IMM fails to load model file which has system attribute(s) in object tags > > but not in its class element. In case of importing, it always > > fails to importing file having system attributes in object tags. > > > > This patch checks if the processing attribute is system or not, > > ignore checking its existence from its class. > > > > > > > > Complete diffstat: > > ------------------ > > src/imm/immloadd/imm_loader.cc | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > src/imm/tools/imm_import.cc | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- > > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > Testing Commands: > > ----------------- > > Import the model attached in the ticket. Or append > > that model info to the basic xml model file, then start the cluster. > > > > > > > > Testing, Expected Results: > > -------------------------- > > No error happens. > > > > > > Conditions of Submission: > > ------------------------- > > Ack from reviewers > > > > > > 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
