Hi Lennart,
You are right that IMM model does not support Boolean type, but what we were
talking here is about Boolean value.
In the C programming language, `true`/`false` boolean value are macro that
would expand to 1 and 0 respectively.
Therefore, it should be valid to assign these values to numeric data types
and should be located in immccb, I think.
int64_values.attribute_name = "SaInt64TValues";
int64_values.value_type = SA_IMM_ATTR_SAINT64T;
int64_values.AddValue(std::to_string(1)); // Should be the same as
int64_values.AddValue("true");
Regards, Vu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 9:55 PM
> To: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Vu Minh Nguyen
> <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Lennart Lund
> <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: fix numberic attribute
> types not accept boolean values [#2902]
>
> Hi Vu
>
> The fix is done in the wrong place. The model modifier (immccb) handles
IMM
> according to IMM rules and Boolean does not exist there. Converting text
> strings "true" and "false" to numeric 1 and 0 is an SMF special case. The
> model modifier shall be kept completely independent of SMF.
> The fix shall be done in the SMF code instead and can be done when data
for
> a CCB is stored.
> It could for example be done in the SmfImmAttribute class (see file
> SmfImmOperation.h):
> If m_type (set using method SetAttributeType()) is a numeric type and data
is
> "true" or "false" then in method AddAttributeValue() the conversion to "1"
or
> "0" can be done.
>
> Thanks
> Lennart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > Sent: den 30 juli 2018 10:38
> > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Vu Minh Nguyen
> > <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for smf: fix numberic attribute
types
> > not accept boolean values [#2902]
> >
> > Summary: smf: fix numberic attribute types not accept boolean values
> > [#2902]
> > Review request for Ticket(s): 2902
> > Peer Reviewer(s): Lennart
> > Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
> > Affected branch(es): develop
> > Development branch: ticket-2902
> > Base revision: ede5191f9caf41836a65acaffd648e7ac0b00590
> > 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 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 2d2cf2d1bc91e3204c614cb37e1edbf461b2b240
> > Author: Vu Minh Nguyen <vu.m.ngu...@dektech.com.au>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:23:54 +0700
> >
> > smf: fix numberic attribute types not accept boolean values [#2902]
> >
> > This patch ensures that giving boolean value to numeric attribute
> > types must be accepted.
> >
> >
> >
> > Complete diffstat:
> > ------------------
> > src/smf/smfd/imm_modify_config/attribute.cc | 20 ++++++++++++++------
> > src/smf/smfd/imm_modify_demo/test_ccbhdl.cc | 12 +++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > Testing Commands:
> > -----------------
> > Run test_ccbhdl
> >
> >
> > Testing, Expected Results:
> > --------------------------
> > No failure
> >
> >
> > Conditions of Submission:
> > -------------------------
> > Ack from Lennart
> >
> >
> > 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
