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 :) )