Hi Lennart
I updated your comment. And sent for new version
while (!osaf_is_timeout(&timeout_time)) {
//[Lennart] Avoid using "while (!osaf_is_timeout(&timeout_time))""
constructions
// instead use "while (osaf_is_timeout(&timeout_time) == false)"
// The reason is for documentation purpose. Faster and easier to read.
[Canh] Done
char command1[MAX_DATA], command2[MAX_DATA];
// [Lennart] Why not give each command a descriptive name?
// Also each command should have its own variable. Anonymous
// variables that change meaning makes the code unnessecary hard to
[Canh] Done
// [Lennart] This command does not count the number of log/cfg files
// but I don't know exactly what this command is actually doing (hard to
analyze).
// Give this command a descriptive name as in example above and if that is
not
// enough then also wright a comment that describes what it is actually
doing.
sprintf(command1, "find %s -type f -mmin -1 "
"| egrep
'%s.*\\.[log$\\|cfg$]' "
"| wc -l | awk '{printf
$1}'",
log_root_path,
"verRotatedFile");
[Canh] This command counts number of cfg and log files. I update the
description:
+ // Find cfg/log files and count number of files
+ // Step 1: Find all that files's data were last modified 1
minutes ago
+ // Step 2: Filter all 'verRotatedFile*.log' and
'verRotatedFile*.cfg'
+ // Step 3: Count number of files at step 2
+ char count_number_of_log_cfg_files[MAX_DATA];
+ sprintf(count_number_of_log_cfg_files,
+ "find %s -type f -mmin -1 "
+ "| egrep '%s.*\\.[log$\\|cfg$]' "
+ "| wc -l | awk '{printf $1}'",
+ log_root_path, "verRotatedFile");
(find /srv/shared/saflog -type f -mmin -1 | egrep
'verRotatedFile.*\.[log$\|cfg$]' | wc -l | awk '{printf $1}')
Regards
Canh
From: Lennart Lund <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 10:26 PM
To: Canh Van Truong <[email protected]>; Vu Minh Nguyen
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Sv: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: Update the try again for
admin operation [#3056]
Hi Canh,
See comments tagged [Lennart] in the attached file.
Thanks
Lennart
_____
Från: Canh Van Truong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Skickat: den 27 juni 2019 09:20
Till: Lennart Lund; Vu Minh Nguyen
Kopia: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ; Canh Van Truong
Ämne: [PATCH 0/1] Review Request for log: Update the try again for admin
operation [#3056]
Summary: log: Update the try again for admin operation [#3056]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3056
Peer Reviewer(s): Vu, Lennart
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3056
Base revision: 97e375ff571bbdb163e6846b90e2f2da58394cbb
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 n
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests y
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision 7659200d2bd20d96d0dbfff6f583be478f9a6429
Author: Canh Van Truong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:19:48 +0700
log: Update the try again for admin operation [#3056]
The logtest 6 49 and logtest 6 50 failed because the admin
operation fail due to closing log file timeout.
Update to try again the command admin operation in test cases
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/log/apitest/tet_LogOiOps.c | 54
++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
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.
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
