Just sent to the dev list, thought there might be other folks having problems
with the Violations stuff misbehaving.
Bug found:
pf/lib/pf/violation_config.pm
Line: 118
"next unless defined $violation->{$key};"
should be:
"next if defined $violation->{$key};"
This was causing missing values to
Pardon me if this is duplicated... think I hit submit too quickly :^/.
So I should have gone digging sooner. Looky what I found at the beginning of a
set of failures:
May 17 12:47:19 httpd.admin(0) INFO: "130" successfully modified
(pfappserver::Base::Model::Config::update)
May 17 12:47:19
Well, heck! I should have done that sooner.
Ok, I'm getting this error when calling the
"pg::config::cached::file_reload_violation_config" function
"file_reload_violation_config":
May 17 12:47:19 httpd.admin(0) INFO: "130" successfully modified
(pfappserver::Base::Model::Config::update)
Ma
an figure out.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Francis Lachapelle [mailto:flachape...@inverse.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:21 AM
To: packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] Possible bug in Violations on 4.0.0
Hi Don
On 2013-05-14, at 2:35 PM, Don G
Francis,
First, thanks a bunch for your reply!
Ok, been playing with this all morning and no luck. My DBA-foo is very weak.
:^)
The class table is completely empty. Doing what you suggested didn't change
that.
I thought maybe I'd screwed something up during installation, so I manually
ba
Hi Don
On 2013-05-14, at 2:35 PM, Don Greer wrote:
> So I’ve got 4.0.0 mostly working and was doing some testing. Attempted to
> do a “Generic” violation on my test box and get a warning on the web gui of
> an error when adding the violation. So, I go look at the log and I get this:
>
>
So I've got 4.0.0 mostly working and was doing some testing. Attempted to do
a "Generic" violation on my test box and get a warning on the web gui of an
error when adding the violation. So, I go look at the log and I get this:
May 14 13:02:41 httpd.admin(0) INFO: "130" found
(pfappserve
