On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Robert Story <rst...@freesnmp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2018 11:25:35 -0400 Bill wrote:
> BF> My proposed fix works for my trapsess case, so I guess that's
> BF> something. Should I commit the broken tests so anyone else who
> BF> wants to try to fix the trap*sink code has a starting point?
> BF> Is the "specifying clientaddr and trap*sink together fails"
> BF> regression a release blocker or just something to release-note?
>
> I don't want to add any release blockers at this point. Maybe
> commit the test to a branch? If you get it working before 5.8
> final I'd vote for inclusion.
To be clear, it's the functionality that's broken, not the test. My
T180trap2sinkclientaddr_simple works on 5.7.3 and fails on
5.8. T182trapsessclientaddr_simple works on both after my
fix. T181trap2sinksourceaddr_simple tests functionality that was
introduced in 5.8, but was broken. The T180 and T181 are broken for the
same reason in 5.8, with the new code.
If these are not release blockers, that's fine: clientaddr + trap session
is probably a little unusual. The result is that traps will be broken in
5.8 for this case. The fact that a new feature is also broken is not that
big a deal, I guess, since nobody is depending on it to work. But it may
be worth marking the broken behavior in the release notes, and maybe
opening up a bug, so that users who want this behavior will have more
information about it, and will know not to bother trying the new feature.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
