Tommy Nevtelen <to...@nevtelen.com> wrote: > On 04/09/2020 18.07, Brian Brombacher wrote: > > Well, let’s say a Linter doesn’t exist and you can’t invest time to make > > one. Do you have a lower environment, mirror-exact ideally, to run tests > > on the pre-receive hook? > > > > It’s an interesting issue you’re trying to solve ;) > > > I didn't say I can't invest time. I just wondered if somebody else > knew of a solution before would try to dabble with it.. I do have a > lab env where stuff could be run but it would be very > un-efficient.. also openbsds interface names are based on the drivers > so I can't try stuff out in virtual machines since the interface names > would differ. I guess I could do some macros for those and change them > but this would be overkill for what I want to achieve. Also I do have > a lot of different setups and setting up test machines all of them > would cost a ton of money which is not worth it. And not what I was > after.
Always put your interfaces into groups. Identify based upon the groups. Yes it is terrible that we have driver names exposed! We should just have eth1-20 etc, but if one of your hardware devices fails, all the subsequent ones will renumber, so their names change, and you have precisely the same problem of exposed driver names. We provide over FIVE ways to identify ports without using the hardware driver names, but hey... this discussion is about the theory you can check overall behaviour of a system by ignoring the important parts.
