On (23/11/15 13:43), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 11/23/2015 09:20 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (20/11/15 15:57), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>please see attached patch.
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>>From 5af54ded9173d336113c65ab1e83dec5d1ca77b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
>>Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:25:11 -0500
>>Subject: [PATCH] DDNS: Use nsupdate keywords for all transactions
>>
>>Keywords realm and server might be used in fallback attempt to update
>>DDNS.
>>
>>This patch puts them explicitely to the nsupdate transaction.
>>
>>Resolves:
>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2872
>The bug in ticket #2872 is cause by bad design document for ticket #2495
>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/DDNSMessagesUpdate
Could you please explain why the design is bad?
Because fallback for A records is correct but incorect for AAAA records.
+ testing part should be extended. We try to prevent bad designs in review.
But I was not able to find it on sssd-devel
Let me quote Petr Spacek's comment from ticket #2872
>Let me clarify this: server and realm commands affect nsupdate's behavior. The
workaround which executes nsupdate binary again for each DNS update transaction forces us
to start each transaction without hacks (explicit keyword usage) and add the keywords
again in second attempt for each transaction.
The workaround Petr mentions is
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2783 and was filled
several months after the design was finished.
I thought that ticket #2783 is related to another ticket #2873
and not to this this one. Is it correct? If not could you explain what is the
difference between #2872 #2873?
>
>So it would be good to keep design document in sync.
>I could not find review of that desing document on sssd-devel.
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-devel%40lists.fedorahos...
>It might be root of the problem. We might also ask bind maintainer
>for yet another review.
>
>Fortunatelly, this RFE(and also bug) is not in rhel7.2.
>The patches were pushed only to sssd-1.13.1 but they might be in another rhel.
>So it would be good to extend section with how to test.
>
>After the review of desing document we can tcontinue with review of patches.
I agree we could update the document, but I don't agree it's a prerequisite for
reviewing patches.
It's not only about updating desing document. If the design document was not
reviewed then it might contain bugs. Therefore implementation will be buggy as
well. And it would be good to prevent too many versions of patches.
If you update design document then I will ask foe review a neutral person (bind
maintainer or simo ...) because pspacek proposed solution
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2872#comment:6
LS