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