[ovs-dev] [PATCH monitor_cond V2 02/12] ovsdb: add conditions utilities to support monitor_cond
Andy Zhou
azhou at ovn.org
Thu Jan 21 21:32:54 UTC 2016
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:41 AM, Liran Schour <LIRANS at il.ibm.com> wrote:
> Andy Zhou <azhou at ovn.org> wrote on 21/01/2016 11:27:42 AM:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Liran Schour <lirans at il.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
> > <condition> now is a 3-element json array or a boolean value, see
> > ovsdb-server(1) man page. This functions will be used for
> > conditional monitoring sessions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Liran Schour <lirans at il.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > ovsdb/condition.c | 270 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > +++++++++--
> > ovsdb/condition.h | 28 ++++-
> > ovsdb/query.c | 4 +-
> > tests/ovsdb-condition.at | 35 +++++-
> > tests/test-ovsdb.c | 29 ++++-
> > 5 files changed, 348 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> > From the last review:
> > > Should any columns within schema be allowed in condition? or only
> > > the ones being monitored?
> > > From protocol viewpoint, it would make sense to allow any column.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, any columns should be allowed in condition.
> >
> > I did not find the implementation to match this. The values used to
> > conditional comparison is coming
> > from the monitored table rows, this is required to be part of the
> > monitored columns? Also tested and verified
> > that monitor_cond does not work if where clause contains columns not
> > being monitored.
> >
> > It would be nice to clearly define which columns are allowed in the
> > where clause.
> >
> > I suppose if the implementation actually allows any column, than
> > there may not be a need for
> > 'columns_index_map' introduced from the last patch.
> >
>
>
> You are right. We have 2 options to fix it:
> 1. Save in ovsdb_monitor_row all the columns in the db and mark the
> columns needs to be monitored. Then we will not need the
> 'columns_index_map' also.
> 2. If a none monitored column is included in a condition then add this
> columns to mt->columns and mark it as only for condition evaluation. In
> this case we do need the 'columns_index_map'.
> I prefer option 1 as being simpler and save indexing mapping issue. What
> do you think?
If we go with option 1, It may be more straight forward to require columns
in condition also be in monitored.
The end result of Option 2 seems better from protocol standpoint.
Implementation wise, I'd like to propose that we add condition to dbmon.
Multiple JSONRPCs can share a dbmon
if both monitored columns and conditions are the same. Would you please
consider this option?
> > The commit message is slightly misleading since ovsdb-server(1)
> > changes are not contained within this patch,
> > but in a later patch.
> >
>
> Right will remove this from message.
>
> > diff --git a/ovsdb/condition.c b/ovsdb/condition.c
> > index 4baf1bb..3e1cc19 100644
> > --- a/ovsdb/condition.c
> > +++ b/ovsdb/condition.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> >
> > #include <limits.h>
> >
> > +#include "bitmap.h"
> > #include "column.h"
> > #include "json.h"
> > #include "ovsdb-error.h"
> > @@ -64,6 +65,17 @@ ovsdb_clause_from_json(const struct
> ovsdb_table_schema *ts,
> > const char *column_name;
> > struct ovsdb_type type;
> >
> > + if (json->type == JSON_TRUE || json->type == JSON_FALSE) {
> > + function_name = (json->type == JSON_TRUE) ? "true" : "false";
> > + error = ovsdb_function_from_string(function_name,
> &clause->function);
> > +
> > + /* column and arg fields are not being used with boolean
> function
> > + * use dummy values */
> > + clause->column = ovsdb_table_schema_get_column(ts, "_uuid");
> > + ovsdb_datum_init_default(&clause->arg, &clause->column->type);
> > + return error;
> > + }
> > +
> >
> > It seems we can simply drop any FALSE if there are more than one
> > clauses, because
> > of the or conditions. On the other hand, the presence to True can
> > be reduced to an empty
> > condition..
> >
> But you still need to remember that you have FALSE clause. For example
> client does the following: condition_add([false,[x],y[]) then does
> condition_remove([x],[y]) the outcome of these 2 operations should be FALSE.
> With the TRUE clause you still need to remember all other clauses in cas
> that client will remove the TRUE clause.
>
> I think we should reject conditions with redundant clauses. [false, [x]],
[true, [x]] and [ [x], [x]] should all be rejected, while single [false] is
not redundant.
Further, we should also reject monitor_cond_update messages that leads to a
redundant clauses. Since those conditions are usually machine generated,
I'd think they are reasonable.
What do you think?
We can then define a truth table for handling single term add and removal:
T + T = T (or reject)
T - T = Empty
T - F = T (or reject)
T + F = T
F + T = T
F - F = Empty
F + F = F (or reject)
F - T = F (or reject)
{T, F} +/- Empty = {T, F}
Empty - * = Empty
Empty + {T, F} = {T, F}
Empty evaluates to true
> > To handle condition changes, you may still want to finish the JSON
> > conversions, or define the protocol
> > in such way that the modification of a TRUE condition the same as
> > modifying an empty condition.
> >
> As I see it, TRUE is not equal to empty condition. For example:
> condition[TRUE + [x]] != condition[EMPTY + [x]]
>
True + [X] will evaluate to true, same as empty.
>
> > If JSON_TRUE and JSON_FALSE has been removed, this function can just
> > expect a JSON_ARRAY.
> >
> After the examples above do you still think it is relevant?
If we agree that condition should not contain redundant clauses, then
either JSON_TRUE or JSON_FALSE has to be the only clause.
>
>
> > if (json->type != JSON_ARRAY
> > || json->u.array.n != 3
> > || json->u.array.elems[0]->type != JSON_STRING
> > @@ -109,7 +121,8 @@ ovsdb_clause_from_json(const struct
> > ovsdb_table_schema *ts,
> > return error;
> > }
> > break;
> > -
> > + case OVSDB_F_TRUE:
> > + case OVSDB_F_FALSE:
> > case OVSDB_F_EQ:
> > case OVSDB_F_NE:
> > break;
> > @@ -164,6 +177,19 @@ compare_clauses_3way(const void *a_, const void *b_)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int
> > +compare_clauses_3way_with_data(const void *a_, const void *b_)
> > +{
> > + const struct ovsdb_clause *a = a_;
> > + const struct ovsdb_clause *b = b_;
> > + int res;
> > +
> > + res = compare_clauses_3way(a, b);
> > + return res ? res : ovsdb_datum_compare_3way(&a->arg,
> > + &b->arg,
> > + &a->column->type);
> > + }
> > +
> > struct ovsdb_error *
> > ovsdb_condition_from_json(const struct ovsdb_table_schema *ts,
> > const struct json *json,
> >
> > Should we make sure there is not duplicated clauses here?
> >
> >
> > @@ -173,7 +199,7 @@ ovsdb_condition_from_json(const struct
> > ovsdb_table_schema *ts,
> > const struct json_array *array = json_array(json);
> > size_t i;
> >
> > - cnd->clauses = xmalloc(array->n * sizeof *cnd->clauses);
> > + cnd->clauses = xzalloc(array->n * sizeof *cnd->clauses);
> > cnd->n_clauses = 0;
> > for (i = 0; i < array->n; i++) {
> > struct ovsdb_error *error;
> > @@ -198,10 +224,16 @@ ovsdb_condition_from_json(const struct
> > ovsdb_table_schema *ts,
> > static struct json *
> > ovsdb_clause_to_json(const struct ovsdb_clause *clause)
> > {
> > - return json_array_create_3(
> > - json_string_create(clause->column->name),
> > - json_string_create(ovsdb_function_to_string(clause->function)),
> > - ovsdb_datum_to_json(&clause->arg, &clause->column->type));
> > + if (clause->function != OVSDB_F_TRUE &&
> > + clause->function != OVSDB_F_FALSE) {
> > + return json_array_create_3(
> > + json_string_create(clause->column->name),
> > + json_string_create(ovsdb_function_to_string
> > (clause->function)),
> > + ovsdb_datum_to_json(&clause->arg,
> &clause->column->type));
> > + }
> > +
> > + return json_boolean_create(clause->function == OVSDB_F_TRUE ?
> > + true : false);
> > }
> >
> > struct json *
> > @@ -218,13 +250,22 @@ ovsdb_condition_to_json(const struct
> > ovsdb_condition *cnd)
> > }
> >
> > static bool
> > -ovsdb_clause_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *row,
> > - const struct ovsdb_clause *c)
> > +ovsdb_clause_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_datum *fields,
> > + const struct ovsdb_clause *c,
> > + const unsigned int columns_index_map[])
> > {
> > - const struct ovsdb_datum *field = &row->fields[c->column->index];
> > + if (c->function == OVSDB_F_TRUE || c->function == OVSDB_F_FALSE) {
> > + return c->function == OVSDB_F_TRUE ? true : false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + const struct ovsdb_datum *field;
> > const struct ovsdb_datum *arg = &c->arg;
> > const struct ovsdb_type *type = &c->column->type;
> >
> > + field = !columns_index_map ?
> > + &fields[c->column->index] :
> > + &fields[columns_index_map[c->column->index]];
> > +
> > if (ovsdb_type_is_optional_scalar(type) && field->n == 0) {
> > switch (c->function) {
> > case OVSDB_F_LT:
> > @@ -237,6 +278,9 @@ ovsdb_clause_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *row,
> > case OVSDB_F_NE:
> > case OVSDB_F_EXCLUDES:
> > return true;
> > + case OVSDB_F_TRUE:
> > + case OVSDB_F_FALSE:
> > + OVS_NOT_REACHED();
> > }
> > } else if (ovsdb_type_is_scalar(type)
> > || ovsdb_type_is_optional_scalar(type)) {
> > @@ -257,6 +301,9 @@ ovsdb_clause_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *row,
> > return cmp >= 0;
> > case OVSDB_F_GT:
> > return cmp > 0;
> > + case OVSDB_F_TRUE:
> > + case OVSDB_F_FALSE:
> > + OVS_NOT_REACHED();
> > }
> > } else {
> > switch (c->function) {
> > @@ -272,6 +319,8 @@ ovsdb_clause_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *row,
> > case OVSDB_F_LE:
> > case OVSDB_F_GE:
> > case OVSDB_F_GT:
> > + case OVSDB_F_TRUE:
> > + case OVSDB_F_FALSE:
> > OVS_NOT_REACHED();
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -279,14 +328,42 @@ ovsdb_clause_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *row,
> > OVS_NOT_REACHED();
> > }
> >
> > +static int
> > +ovsdb_clause_exists(const struct ovsdb_condition *cnd,
> > + const struct ovsdb_clause *clause)
> > +{
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + for (i=0; i < cnd->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + if(!compare_clauses_3way_with_data(&cnd->clauses[i], clause)) {
> > + return i;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -1;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void
> > +ovsdb_clone_clause(struct ovsdb_clause *new, struct ovsdb_clause *old)
> > +{
> > + new->function = old->function;
> > + new->column = old->column;
> > + ovsdb_datum_clone(&new->arg,
> > + &old->arg,
> > + &old->column->type);
> > +}
> > +
> > bool
> > ovsdb_condition_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *row,
> > - const struct ovsdb_condition *cnd)
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *cnd,
> > + const unsigned int columns_index_map[])
> > {
> > size_t i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < cnd->n_clauses; i++) {
> > - if (!ovsdb_clause_evaluate(row, &cnd->clauses[i])) {
> > + if (!ovsdb_clause_evaluate(row->fields,
> > + &cnd->clauses[i],
> > + columns_index_map)) {
> > return false;
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -294,6 +371,28 @@ ovsdb_condition_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row
> *row,
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> > +bool
> > +ovsdb_condition_evaluate_or_datum(const struct ovsdb_datum *row_datum,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *cnd,
> > + const unsigned int
> columns_index_map[])
> > The name of this function is not clear about its intention. The
> > implementation also
> > duplicate in many parts with ovsdb_condition_evaluate() above.
> > +{
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + if (cnd->n_clauses == 0) {
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < cnd->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + if (ovsdb_clause_evaluate(row_datum,
> > + &cnd->clauses[i],
> > + columns_index_map)) {
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> > void
> > ovsdb_condition_destroy(struct ovsdb_condition *cnd)
> > {
> > @@ -303,4 +402,153 @@ ovsdb_condition_destroy(struct ovsdb_condition
> *cnd)
> > ovsdb_clause_free(&cnd->clauses[i]);
> > }
> > free(cnd->clauses);
> > Should cnd->clauses be set to NULL?
> > + cnd->n_clauses = 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void ovsdb_condition_init(struct ovsdb_condition *cnd)
> > +{
> > + cnd->clauses = NULL;
> > + cnd->n_clauses = 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool ovsdb_condition_empty(const struct ovsdb_condition *cnd)
> > +{
> > + return cnd->n_clauses == 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int ovsdb_condition_cmp(const struct ovsdb_condition *a,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *b)
> > +{
> > + size_t i;
> > + int res;
> > +
> > + if (a->n_clauses != b->n_clauses) {
> > + return a->n_clauses - b->n_clauses;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* We assume clauses are sorted */
> > + for (i = 0; i < a->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + res = (compare_clauses_3way_with_data(&a->clauses[i],
> > &b->clauses[i]));
> > + if (res != 0) {
> > + return res;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void
> > +ovsdb_condition_clone(struct ovsdb_condition *to,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *from)
> > +{
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + to->clauses = xzalloc(from->n_clauses * sizeof *to->clauses);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < from->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + ovsdb_clone_clause(&to->clauses[i], &from->clauses[i]);
> > + }
> > + to->n_clauses = from->n_clauses;
> > +}
> > +
> >
> > With the way it is implemented, the order of when "add" and
> > "remove' are applied
> > is important. May be it should be documented.
> >
> Agree. Add is being applied before of remove.
>
> > Another possibility is to check and make sure clauses in "add" and
> > "remove" are orthogonal.
> > Reject the change if they are not.
> >
> To simplify client usage I think we should allow client to add a clause
> and then remove it in the same change operation. What do you think?
Is there a use case for this? I can't think of a case that allowing this
can be useful.
On the other hand, not allowing this removes the need to document and
reasoning about the ordering or add and removal.
>
>
>
> > +void
> > +ovsdb_condition_add(struct ovsdb_condition *to,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *add)
> > +{
> > + size_t i, count = 0;
> > + struct ovsdb_clause *clauses;
> > + unsigned long int *clause_map =
> xzalloc(bitmap_n_bytes(add->n_clauses));
> > + int index = to->n_clauses;;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < add->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + if (ovsdb_clause_exists(to, &add->clauses[i]) == -1) {
> > + bitmap_set1(clause_map, i);
> > + count++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!count) {
> > + free(clause_map);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > + clauses = xzalloc((to->n_clauses + count) * sizeof *clauses);
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < to->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + ovsdb_clone_clause(&clauses[i], &to->clauses[i]);
> > + ovsdb_clause_free(&to->clauses[i]);
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < add->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + if (bitmap_is_set(clause_map, i)) {
> > + ovsdb_clone_clause(&clauses[index++], &add->clauses[i]);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> >
> > Should we keep the clauses sorted?
> >
> > If yes, It may be more efficient to blindly add the new clauses,
> > using xreallc()
> > sort them, then only check for duplicates with adjacent clauses.
> >
>
> Will fix this.
>
>
> > +
> > + free(to->clauses);
> > + free(clause_map);
> > + to->clauses = clauses;
> > + to->n_clauses += count;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void
> > +ovsdb_condition_remove(struct ovsdb_condition *from,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *remove)
> > +{
> > + size_t i, count = 0;
> > + int j;
> > + struct ovsdb_clause *clauses;
> > + unsigned long int *clause_map =
> xmalloc(bitmap_n_bytes(from->n_clauses));
> > + int index = 0;
> > +
> > + if (remove->n_clauses == 0) {
> > + free(clause_map);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < from->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + bitmap_set1(clause_map, i);
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < remove->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + j = ovsdb_clause_exists(from, &remove->clauses[i]);
> > + if (j >= 0) {
> > + bitmap_set0(clause_map, j);
> > + count++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (count == 0) {
> > + free(clause_map);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + clauses = xzalloc((from->n_clauses - count) * sizeof *clauses);
> > + for (i = 0; i < from->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + if (bitmap_is_set(clause_map, i)) {
> > + ovsdb_clone_clause(&clauses[index++], &from->clauses[i]);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > Should clauses still be sorted after removal? Since we make sure all
> removed
> > clauses exist in current condition at message parsing time
> > (ovsdb_monitor_table_condition_change()),
> > sort then remove should also work.
> >
>
> Will fix this.
>
>
> > + free(from->clauses);
> > + free(clause_map);
> > + from->clauses = clauses;
> > + from->n_clauses -= count;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Returns if a + b includes c */
> > +bool
> > +ovsdb_conditions_includes(const struct ovsdb_condition *a,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *b,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *c)
> > +{
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < c->n_clauses; i++) {
> > + if(ovsdb_clause_exists(a, &c->clauses[i]) == -1 &&
> > + ovsdb_clause_exists(b, &c->clauses[i]) == -1) {
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return true;
> > }
> > diff --git a/ovsdb/condition.h b/ovsdb/condition.h
> > index 620757f..4d223d4 100644
> > --- a/ovsdb/condition.h
> > +++ b/ovsdb/condition.h
> > @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ struct ovsdb_row;
> > /* These list is ordered in ascending order of the fraction of
> > tables row that
> > * they are (heuristically) expected to leave in query results. */
> > #define OVSDB_FUNCTIONS \
> > + OVSDB_FUNCTION(OVSDB_F_FALSE, "false") \
> > + OVSDB_FUNCTION(OVSDB_F_TRUE, "true") \
> > OVSDB_FUNCTION(OVSDB_F_EQ, "==") \
> > OVSDB_FUNCTION(OVSDB_F_INCLUDES, "includes") \
> > OVSDB_FUNCTION(OVSDB_F_LE, "<=") \
> > @@ -60,6 +62,8 @@ struct ovsdb_condition {
> >
> > #define OVSDB_CONDITION_INITIALIZER { NULL, 0 }
> >
> > +void ovsdb_condition_init(struct ovsdb_condition *);
> > +bool ovsdb_condition_empty(const struct ovsdb_condition *);
> > struct ovsdb_error *ovsdb_condition_from_json(
> > const struct ovsdb_table_schema *,
> > const struct json *, struct ovsdb_symbol_table *,
> > @@ -67,6 +71,28 @@ struct ovsdb_error *ovsdb_condition_from_json(
> > struct json *ovsdb_condition_to_json(const struct ovsdb_condition *);
> > void ovsdb_condition_destroy(struct ovsdb_condition *);
> > bool ovsdb_condition_evaluate(const struct ovsdb_row *,
> > - const struct ovsdb_condition *);
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *,
> > + const unsigned int columns_index_map[]);
> > +bool ovsdb_condition_evaluate_or_datum(const struct ovsdb_datum *,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *,
> > + const unsigned int
> > columns_index_map[]);
> > +int ovsdb_condition_cmp(const struct ovsdb_condition *a,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *b);
> > +
> > +void ovsdb_condition_clone(struct ovsdb_condition *to,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *from);
> > +
> > +void
> > +ovsdb_condition_add(struct ovsdb_condition *to,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *add);
> > +
> > +void
> > +ovsdb_condition_remove(struct ovsdb_condition *from,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *remove);
> > +
> > +bool
> > +ovsdb_conditions_includes(const struct ovsdb_condition *a,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *b,
> > + const struct ovsdb_condition *c);
> >
> > #endif /* ovsdb/condition.h */
> > diff --git a/ovsdb/query.c b/ovsdb/query.c
> > index e288020..5d3f9b1 100644
> > --- a/ovsdb/query.c
> > +++ b/ovsdb/query.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ ovsdb_query(struct ovsdb_table *table, const
> > struct ovsdb_condition *cnd,
> > const struct ovsdb_row *row;
> >
> > row = ovsdb_table_get_row(table,
> &cnd->clauses[0].arg.keys[0].uuid);
> > - if (row && row->table == table && ovsdb_condition_evaluate
> > (row, cnd)) {
> > + if (row && row->table == table && ovsdb_condition_evaluate
> > (row, cnd, NULL)) {
> > output_row(row, aux);
> > }
> > } else {
> > @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ ovsdb_query(struct ovsdb_table *table, const
> > struct ovsdb_condition *cnd,
> > const struct ovsdb_row *row, *next;
> >
> > HMAP_FOR_EACH_SAFE (row, next, hmap_node, &table->rows) {
> > - if (ovsdb_condition_evaluate(row, cnd) && !output_row
> > (row, aux)) {
> > + if (ovsdb_condition_evaluate(row, cnd, NULL) && !
> > output_row(row, aux)) {
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > diff --git a/tests/ovsdb-condition.at b/tests/ovsdb-condition.at
> > index ab54b1c..285c3d6 100644
> > --- a/tests/ovsdb-condition.at
> > +++ b/tests/ovsdb-condition.at
> > @@ -181,8 +181,21 @@ OVSDB_CHECK_POSITIVE([condition sorting],
> > ["i", "<", 4],
> > ["i", ">", 6],
> > ["i", ">=", 5],
> > - ["_uuid", "==", ["uuid",
> "d50e85c6-8ae7-4b16-b69e-4395928bd9be"]]]']],
> > - [[[["_uuid","==",["uuid","d50e85c6-8ae7-4b16-
> > b69e-4395928bd9be"]],["i","==",1],["i","includes",2],["i","<=",3],
> > ["i","<",4],["i",">=",5],["i",">",6],["i","excludes",7],["i","!=",8]]]])
> > + ["_uuid", "==", ["uuid", "d50e85c6-8ae7-4b16-b69e-4395928bd9be"]],
> > + true]']],
> > + [[[true,["_uuid","==",["uuid","d50e85c6-8ae7-4b16-
> > b69e-4395928bd9be"]],["i","==",1],["i","includes",2],["i","<=",3],
> > ["i","<",4],["i",">=",5],["i",">",6],["i","excludes",7],["i","!=",8]]]])
> > +
> > +OVSDB_CHECK_POSITIVE([boolean condition],
> > + [[parse-conditions \
> > + '{"columns": {"name": {"type": "string"}}}' \
> > + '[true]']],
> > + [[[true]]])
> > +
> > +OVSDB_CHECK_POSITIVE([boolean condition],
> > + [[parse-conditions \
> > + '{"columns": {"name": {"type": "string"}}}' \
> > + '[false]']],
> > + [[[false]]])
> >
> > OVSDB_CHECK_POSITIVE([evaluating null condition],
> > [[evaluate-conditions \
> > @@ -657,3 +670,21 @@ condition 5: --T-
> > condition 6: -T--
> > condition 7: T-TT
> > condition 8: -T-T], [condition])
> > +
> > +OVSDB_CHECK_POSITIVE([evaluating false boolean condition],
> > + [[evaluate-conditions \
> > + '{"columns": {"i": {"type": "integer"}}}' \
> > + '[[false,["i","==",0]]]' \
> > + '[{"i": 0},
> > + {"i": 1},
> > + {"i": 2}']]],
> > + [condition 0: ---])
> > +
> > +OVSDB_CHECK_POSITIVE([evaluating true boolean condition],
> > + [[evaluate-conditions-or \
> > + '{"columns": {"i": {"type": "integer"}}}' \
> > + '[[true,["i","==",0]]]' \
> > + '[{"i": 0},
> > + {"i": 1},
> > + {"i": 2}']]],
> > + [condition 0: TTT])
> > diff --git a/tests/test-ovsdb.c b/tests/test-ovsdb.c
> > index 15f41b0..e924532 100644
> > --- a/tests/test-ovsdb.c
> > +++ b/tests/test-ovsdb.c
> > @@ -851,8 +851,11 @@ do_parse_conditions(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > exit(exit_code);
> > }
> >
> > +#define OVSDB_CONDITION_AND 0
> > +#define OVSDB_CONDITION_OR 1
> > +
> > static void
> > -do_evaluate_conditions(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > +do_evaluate_condition__(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx, int mode)
> > {
> > struct ovsdb_table_schema *ts;
> > struct ovsdb_table *table;
> > @@ -900,7 +903,16 @@ do_evaluate_conditions(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > for (i = 0; i < n_conditions; i++) {
> > printf("condition %2"PRIuSIZE":", i);
> > for (j = 0; j < n_rows; j++) {
> > - bool result = ovsdb_condition_evaluate(rows[j],
> &conditions[i]);
> > + bool result;
> > + if (mode == OVSDB_CONDITION_AND) {
> > + result = ovsdb_condition_evaluate(rows[j],
> > + &conditions[i],
> > + NULL);
> > + } else {
> > + result =
> ovsdb_condition_evaluate_or_datum(rows[j]->fields,
> > +
> &conditions[i],
> > + NULL);
> > + }
> > if (j % 5 == 0) {
> > putchar(' ');
> > }
> > @@ -921,6 +933,18 @@ do_evaluate_conditions(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > }
> >
> > static void
> > +do_evaluate_conditions(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > +{
> > + do_evaluate_condition__(ctx, OVSDB_CONDITION_AND);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void
> > +do_evaluate_conditions_or(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > +{
> > + do_evaluate_condition__(ctx, OVSDB_CONDITION_OR);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void
> > do_parse_mutations(struct ovs_cmdl_context *ctx)
> > {
> > struct ovsdb_table_schema *ts;
> > @@ -2191,6 +2215,7 @@ static struct ovs_cmdl_command all_commands[] = {
> > { "compare-rows", NULL, 2, INT_MAX, do_compare_rows },
> > { "parse-conditions", NULL, 2, INT_MAX, do_parse_conditions },
> > { "evaluate-conditions", NULL, 3, 3, do_evaluate_conditions },
> > + { "evaluate-conditions-or", NULL, 3, 3, do_evaluate_conditions_or },
> > { "parse-mutations", NULL, 2, INT_MAX, do_parse_mutations },
> > { "execute-mutations", NULL, 3, 3, do_execute_mutations },
> > { "query", NULL, 3, 3, do_query },
> > --
> > 2.1.4
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > dev at openvswitch.org
> > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
More information about the dev
mailing list