On 22.9.2011 13:27, Martin Kosek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:31 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 25.8.2011 18:21, Jan Cholasta wrote:
What this patch does:
* Make sure arguments are validated and default values are filled in
before calling a command.
* Add new parameter flag "validate_search" to force validation on search
arguments.
* Fix validation of IP network parameters in the DNS plugin.
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/1627
Honza
Redone the patch and split it to 3 parts:
I haven't tested these yet, these comments are just from reading the
patches.
* [PATCH 46] Add IP address and IP network parameter types
Adds two new parameter types, IPAddress and IPNetwork (which replaces
the validate_search flag, as it was just a hack).
A param type looks like the way to go. There are other IPaddress
parameters, such in host, should this be expanded to cover that?
Not sure about replacing List with Str types. It may make no difference
since I'm not sure how a List could be passed for some of these. Can you
make sure there is no possibility that on the wire someone couldn't pass
these as a list and actually do something reasonable in the server? I
suspect they can't but this is a rather major datatype change.
* [PATCH 44] Fix parameter validation
Changes Command.get_default so that default_from parameters are
validated before they are used to create the default value.
Just a heads-up but this will conflict big time with my password patch.
It throws away the ordering that the parameters had. This could impact
the order in which interactive prompting happens. Did you verify that it
still works sanely?
* [PATCH 47] Remove create_default
Removes create_default, as it does exactly the same thing as
default_from, but without the advantage of knowing what parameters are
used to create the default value. All uses of create_default are
replaced by default_from with no arguments, because that's all
create_default is currently used for in IPA.
I'm not sure why you want to remove this, is it causing problems with
validation?
In general the patch comments need more details. This patch e-mail has
more information on what each patch does than the patches themselves,
including lacking ticket info.
rob
Hm, by the way I am not very excited about adopting this sort of changes
to framework that close to the 6.2 rebase. Are we sure enough that this
won't cause any collateral damage?
If possible, I would prefer to integrate it to 3.0 branch so that we
have enough time to validate it and fix bugs.
Martin
I concur.
Honza
--
Jan Cholasta
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
