[Pacemaker] About the difference in handling of "sequential".

[Kristoffer Grönlund]

Hi everyone,

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:54:29 +0900 (JST)
renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I found your correction.
> 
> https://github.com/beekhof/pacemaker/commit/37ff51a0edba208e6240e812936717fffc941a41
> 
> Many Thanks!
> Hideo Yamauchi.
> 
> --- On Wed, 2014/2/12, renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp
> <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > There is difference in two between handling of "sequential" of
> > "resouce_set" of colocation.
> > 

I suspect that sequential for resource sets is still broken. I have
been trying to figure out what the expected value of sequential is if
not explicitly set on a resource_set. It seems like the answer is "it
depends".

In pengine/constraints.c, unpack_order_set, sequential defaults to true
if not set, via the following logic:

    /* line 1368 */
    const char *sequential_s = crm_element_value(set, "sequential");
    /* line 1384 */
    if (sequential_s == NULL) {
        sequential_s = "1";
    }
    sequential = crm_is_true(sequential_s);

However, in pengine/constraints.c(450), template_to_set, sequential
defaults to false:

    /* line 495 */
    /* Set sequential="false" for the resource_set */
    crm_xml_add(*rsc_set, "sequential", XML_BOOLEAN_FALSE);

Am I reading this wrong, or is this on purpose?

-- 
// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronlund at suse.com