On (01/10/15 13:56), Michal Židek wrote:
On 09/16/2015 03:56 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>On 09/15/2015 04:03 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>On 09/14/2015 05:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>patch for ticket
>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
>>>>>is in the attachment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>Michal
>>>>
>>>>> From 7c454bc2a737be05068418a5eef7fe9446bb5fa8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>>>2001
>>>>>From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <mzidek(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:37:48 +0200
>>>>>Subject: [PATCH] util: Include disabled domains in link_forest_roots
>>>>>
>>>>>Ticket:
>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
>>>>>---
>>>>> src/db/sysdb_subdomains.c | 6 +++---
>>>>> src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c | 3 +++
>>>>> src/util/domain_info_utils.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> src/util/util.h | 3 +++
>>>>> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>The patch looks good but whenever I see us adding more and more boolean
>>>>switches, I wonder if we should just use flags instead?
>>>>
>>>>This:
>>>> get_next_domain_ex(d, GND_USE_DISABLED | GND_DESCEND);
>>>>Reads quite a bit easier to me than:
>>>> get_next_domain_ex(d, true, false);
>>>>
>>>>Also, bonus point are acquired next time we add a new flag, because not
>>>>all callers of the function must be converted..
>>>>
>>>>What do you think?
>>>
>>>I think this is very good point. It will also give us implicit
>>>boolean parameter value (if not set, it is automatically false)
>>>which improves readability a lot. I wander if it is good to add
>>>the _ex function in this case. Would you agree if I changed the
>>>original get_next_domain to use flags? I know, it needs to be changed
>>>on more places, but I think such small refactoring makes more
>>>sence than adding _ex function with flags.
>>>
>>>Or is this what you were saying? I am not sure because
>>>you used the _ex function in your example of "nice"
>>>usage.
>>
>>If we have a test for different usages of the flag-based function, then
>>I guess it would be better than keeping the existing get_next_domain
>>function.
>>
>>We can also split master from sssd-1-13 already..
>>
>>btw the flag names were completely pulled out of thin air, feel free to
>>suggest better ones.
>
>I split the refactoring of get_next_domain to separate patch.
>The second patch is just one liner that switches on the
>disabled domains in link_forest_roots.
>
>Michal
>
____ _ _ __ __ ____
__/\_| __ )| | | | \/ | _ \__/\__
\ / _ \| | | | |\/| | |_) \ /
/_ _\ |_) | |_| | | | | __//_ _\
\/ |____/ \___/|_| |_|_| \/
(low priority, just keeping the thread alive :) )
Would you mind to write unit tests
for get_next_domain?
LS