CLOUDSTACK-8749: Add checks to prevent malformed/unexpected input

[yadvr]

Based on @jburwell's comment on PR #718

[asfbot]

cloudstack-pull-rats #379 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

[asfbot]

cloudstack-pull-analysis #312 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

[remibergsma]

LGTM

[remibergsma]

@jburwell can you review this please? Thanks!

[jburwell]

Reading through this block, it feels like lines 289-293 should be extracted to a private method:

static parseDevice(final String line) {
final String[] tokens = line.split( " ");
if (tokens != null && tokens.length < 2) {
return "";
}
final String device = tokens[2];
return Strings.isNullOrEmpty(device) : " " ? device;
} 

The extraction of this method would not only shorten the deleteExitingLinkLocalLocalRoutetTable method, but clearly express the intent. It also allows a unit test to be written to verify that parsing works as expected for different types of input.

[yadvr]

With respect to this specific code, I would like do this the next time we do a round of refactoring, possibly factor such code to a util class that can be used as a general purpose line parsing static method and add unit tests. For now, at least the code takes care of malformed inputs.

[jburwell]

While it is a small nit and not expressly within the scope of this PR, could you fix the spelling mistake in the deleteExitingLinkLocalRouteTable name?

[yadvr]

renamed the method, s/deleteExitingLinkLocalRouteTable/deleteExistingLinkLocalRouteTable/g

[asfbot]

cloudstack-pull-rats #403 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

[asfbot]

cloudstack-pull-analysis #336 UNSTABLE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request