Review Request 1690: journald: Fix EOF reporting when not advancing next on LMI_JournalMessageLog.GetRecord()

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Review request for OpenLMI Developers.


Repository: openlmi-providers


Description
-------

Testing wrong return code when sd_journal_next() was not called as it
was not needed. When step_next == FALSE the EOF flag must be never set
since the journal EOF case is tested at the beginning of the function
and we're not advancing next thus staying on a valid cursor.

--
found by failing tests, should check them more often :-o
BTW I'm not adding any tests regarding the journal EOF case as they would be racy from
nature on a live (system) journal.


Diffs
-----

  src/journald/instutil.c b2ed0e74f496054f77d96902500f38bde95a6246 

Diff: http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/diff/


Testing
-------


Thanks,

Tomáš Bžatek

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/#review2602
-----------------------------------------------------------


Autoscan started for review(s) 1690[1]

- scanbot


On May 9, 2014, 2:43 p.m., Tomáš Bžatek wrote:
>  
>  -----------------------------------------------------------
>  This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>  http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/
>  -----------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  (Updated May 9, 2014, 2:43 p.m.)
>  
>  
>  Review request for OpenLMI Developers.
>  
>  
>  Repository: openlmi-providers
>  
>  
>  Description
>  -------
>  
>  Testing wrong return code when sd_journal_next() was not called as it
>  was not needed. When step_next == FALSE the EOF flag must be never set
>  since the journal EOF case is tested at the beginning of the function
>  and we're not advancing next thus staying on a valid cursor.
>  
>  --
>  found by failing tests, should check them more often :-o
>  BTW I'm not adding any tests regarding the journal EOF case as they would be racy
> from nature on a live (system) journal.
>  
>  
>  Diffs
>  -----
>  
>    src/journald/instutil.c b2ed0e74f496054f77d96902500f38bde95a6246 
>  
>  Diff: http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/diff/
>  
>  
>  Testing
>  -------
>  
>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>  Tomáš Bžatek
>  
>

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/
-----------------------------------------------------------

(Updated May 15, 2014, 2:13 p.m.)


Status
------

This change has been marked as submitted.


Review request for OpenLMI Developers.


Repository: openlmi-providers


Description
-------

Testing wrong return code when sd_journal_next() was not called as it
was not needed. When step_next == FALSE the EOF flag must be never set
since the journal EOF case is tested at the beginning of the function
and we're not advancing next thus staying on a valid cursor.

--
found by failing tests, should check them more often :-o
BTW I'm not adding any tests regarding the journal EOF case as they would be racy from
nature on a live (system) journal.


Diffs
-----

  src/journald/instutil.c b2ed0e74f496054f77d96902500f38bde95a6246 

Diff: http://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/r/1690/diff/


Testing
-------


Thanks,

Tomáš Bžatek