Hi Minh/Thang/Nagendra/Paul, I am planning to push the patch by 30th July(thursday). Please kindly find some time to review by 29th July(tomorrow) and send your comments or Ack.
Thanks Anand Sundararaj Senior Solutions Architect | +1 480 686 4772 www.GetHighAvailability.com (https://am2.myprofessionalmail.com/appsuite/www.GetHighAvailability.com) Get High Availability Today! NJ, USA: +1 508-507-6507 > On 07/23/2020 7:28 PM s.an...@gethighavailability.com wrote: > > > From: Anand Sundararaj <s.an...@gethighavailability.com> > > Summary: amf: support error report on non local component [#109] > Review request for Ticket(s): 109 > Peer Reviewer(s): Minh, Thang, Nagendra, Paul > Pull request to: Amf Maintainers > Affected branch(es): develop > Development branch: ticket-109 > Base revision: 59ded7cdf6a431e522229afd5ecb989e4a61c7d8 > Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/s-anand-has/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 > > NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > *** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE *** > > revision fbdef9a140a12d1ca301658537f28bc0dc719a22 > Author: Anand Sundararaj <s.an...@gethighavailability.com> > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:53:50 +0530 > > amf: support error report on non local component [#109] > > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > src/amf/amfnd/amfnd.cc | 22 ++++-- > src/amf/amfnd/avnd_cb.h | 2 + > src/amf/amfnd/avnd_comp.h | 2 + > src/amf/amfnd/clm.cc | 33 ++++++++- > src/amf/amfnd/err.cc | 182 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 5 files changed, 228 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > Configure amf demo on Comp1/SU1(on SC-1) and Comp2/SU2 (on PL-3) > 1. Report error(saAmfComponentErrorReport_4) from Comp1 runnign on SC-1 for > Comp2 running on PL-3 with > recommendedRecovery as SA_AMF_COMPONENT_RESTART > Comp2 restarts > osafamfnd[2450]: NO Restarting a component of > 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' (comp restart count: 1) > osafamfnd[2450]: NO 'safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' > faulted due to 'errorReport' : Recovery is 'componentRestart' > osafamfnd[2450]: NO 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' Presence State > INSTANTIATED => RESTARTING > > 2. Repeat tc #1 with unconfigured component name like safComp=AmfDem5, then > the return is SA_AIS_ERR_NOT_EXIST(12) > osafamfnd[3970]: NO Component > 'safComp=AmfDem5,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' is not configured > amf_demo[14441]: saAmfComponentErrorReport_4 FAILED - 12 on > safComp=AmfDem5,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 > > 3. Stop PL-3 and rerun the tc #1, the return will be > SA_AIS_ERR_UNAVAILABLE(31) > amf_demo[14922]: saAmfComponentErrorReport_4 FAILED - 31 on > safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 > > 4. Repeat tc #1. When error report call comes to Amfnd of PL-3, then keep gdb > and stop PL-3 > The return will be SA_AIS_ERR_TIMEOUT(5) > amf_demo[15503]: saAmfComponentErrorReport_4 FAILED - 5 on > safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 > > 5. Lock PL-3 and repeat tc #1. The component will restart at PL-3 > > 6. Lock and lock-in PL-3 and repeat tc #1. The error report will return > SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM(7) > amf_demo[15773]: saAmfComponentErrorReport_4 FAILED - 7 on > safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 > > 7. Lock Clm node PL-3, repeat tc #1. The error report will return > SA_AIS_ERR_UNAVAILABLE(31) > amf_demo[15873]: saAmfComponentErrorReport_4 FAILED - 31 on > safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 > > 8. Kill component on PL-3 and return non-zero in cleanup command, it will go > into TERMINATION_FAILED > Now repeat #1, the return will be SA_AIS_ERR_INVALID_PARAM(7) > amf_demo[16016]: saAmfComponentErrorReport_4 FAILED - 7 on > safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1 > > 9. Repeat the tc #8 for INSTANTIATION_FAILED, the same result. > > 10. Repeat tc #1 with recommendedRecovery as SA_AMF_NODE_SWITCHOVER > osafamfnd[2419]: NO 'safComp=AmfDemo,safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' > faulted due to 'errorReport' : Recovery is 'nodeSwitchover' > osafamfnd[2419]: NO Informing director of Nodeswitchover > > 11. Repeat tc #1 when su unlock operation going on SU2 of PL-3. > While admin unlock is going on SU2(i.e. when it gets Act cbk, then hold the > response for 5 seconds), call saAmfComponentErrorReport_4() from > Comp1(Running on SC-1) as in tc #1. > Comp2 will restart and get Act assignment again. > > osafamfnd[3258]: NO Assigning 'safSi=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' ACTIVE to > 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' > osafamfnd[3258]: NO 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' component > restart probation timer started (timeout: 400000000000 ns) > osafamfnd[3258]: NO Restarting a component of > 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' (comp restart count: 1) > osafamfnd[3258]: NO 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' Presence State > RESTARTING => INSTANTIATED > osafamfnd[3258]: NO Assigned 'safSi=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' ACTIVE to > 'safSu=SU2,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo1' > > 12. Repeat tc #11 for su shutdown/lock, node&SG lock/unlock/shutdown, SI > lock/unlock. The same result. > 13. Repeat tc #1 for NPI component. The npi component get restarted. > 14. Repeat tc #3 for NPI. The same result. > 15. Repeat rc #4 for NPI. The same result. > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > As described above > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from any amf maintainers. Timeout in 3 days > > 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. _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
