[SSSD] [PATCH] confdb: Remove unused function confdb_get_long

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Wed Sep 30 08:33:26 UTC 2015


On (30/09/15 10:06), Sumit Bose wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:31:57AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 09/30/2015 07:42 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >On (29/09/15 17:45), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >>On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:38:58AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
>> >>>On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:50:06AM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On 09/29/2015 10:44 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >>>>>On (29/09/15 10:42), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>On 09/29/2015 10:35 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >>>>>>>On (29/09/15 10:16), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>On 09/29/2015 10:08 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>On (29/09/15 08:45), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>On 09/29/2015 08:31 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>On (27/09/15 12:49), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hello, please see trivial patch attached.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>From b9f938087973444f0ec26fc24ad68dca7ac63034 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pavel Reichl <reichl.pavel at gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:34:20 +0200
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [PATCH] confdb: Remove unused function confdb_get_long
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>---
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>src/confdb/confdb.c | 51 ---------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>1 file changed, 51 deletions(-)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>diff --git a/src/confdb/confdb.c b/src/confdb/confdb.c
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>index c097aad7745eda4fff051c7da027776f95db0f03..eebd478f74041d2050df9edc283df43a65462340 100644
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>--- a/src/confdb/confdb.c
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>+++ b/src/confdb/confdb.c
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>@@ -475,57 +475,6 @@ failed:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>     return ret;
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>}
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-long confdb_get_long(struct confdb_ctx *cdb,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-                     const char *section, const char *attribute,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-                     long defval, long *result)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-{
>> >>>>>>>>>>>Would it be better to consider this function as confdb API
>> >>>>>>>>>>>and add to src/confdb/confdb.h?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>It could be.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>It might be useful in the future.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>I thought that out policy towards unused functions were to remove them.
>> >>>>>>>>>Could you point me to the description of such policy?
>> >>>>>>>>>I'm not aware of it.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I don't think it's written anywhere
>> >>>>>>>Good to know. I thought I missed something
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>I just saw we did it repeatedly before and thought it's our general practice.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>One more time:
>> >>>>>>>If we consider confdb as library than we should never remove functions.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Removing functions from other parts of code is something
>> >>>>>>>else.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>We did so in commit 2b94ab415b30861f42b68725d9231905baf8c3bd
>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't notice that patch. I'm sorry I do not have a time
>> >>>>>>>>>to follow each patchset.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>We can always resurrect removed code if needed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>If we consider confdb as library than
>> >>>>>>>>>we should never remove functions.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Then we should decide which parts of SSSD are public libraries and which are not, then we could avoid this kind of discussions.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>I wrote "consider confdb as library" and not as a public library with
>> >>>>>>>stable API. And libraries many times contains function which are not used.
>> >>>>>>>So we should not remove them. Even though it would be still in git history.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Why? If we don't use them and nobody else does why do we have to keep them?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>libraries many times contains function which are not used
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Well, but if they are not public we can change that, right? We can change them as we need and removing unused code is one of those things. I don't see the difference between private library and 'other parts of code'.
>> >>>
>> >>>I think we should be explicit here. If we want to consider confdb as a
>> >>>library we should make it a public library with a stable API with all
>> >>>the consequences. In general I think this is not a bad idea e.g. with
>> >>>respect to all the config related tickets we have planned for 1.14. But
>> >>>we should define the initial version of a stable API, based on the
>> >>>result and requirements from the 1.14 tickets.
>> >>
>> >>I'm more with Simo here that we shouldn't consider confdb and sysdb as
>> >>stable ABIs, at least not yet. I think we need the flexibility of a private,
>> >>unstable library.
>> >>
>> >>At the same time, I think we should try harder to avoid polluting the
>> >>sysdb/confdb APIs with new calls and in general strive to make even the
>> >>internal APIs easily usable. Here I agree with Lukas that the
>> >>current interface is not very nice -- and the sysdb interface would be
>> >>something that any new external contributor would be confronted with.
>> >>
>> >>Maybe when we review (hint, nudge, nudge) Michal's sysdb patches, we can
>> >>take a look at the API and massage it a bit, move related functions
>> >>together in the header files and merge or remove extra functions? (Yes,
>> >>we can also file a ticket, but I don't think it would land in a
>> >>milestone where we would touch it soon...)
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>Having private/internal libraries with a more relaxed policy might turn
>> >>>out to be problematic as e.g. can be seen by some internal samba
>> >>>libraries which are used by us, OpenChange and maybe other projects
>> >>>where upstream changes might force changes in the other projects as
>> >>>well. Ok, the argument here is that they shouldn't have been used in the
>> >>>first place, but what's the point in re-implementing existing
>> >>>functionality.
>> >>>
>> >>>Currently I wouldn't see libsss_util where confdb.c is included as a
>> >>>library at all, but just as a mean to make the build process easier and
>> >>>faster.
>> >>>
>> >>>Coming to the original topic of the discussion, I would agree to remove
>> >>>confdb_get_long() because it is nowhere used (and it looks like it
>> >>>never was) and it does not even have a test.
>> >>
>> >>Is that an ack? :-)
>> >No,
>> 
>> I think this was rather question for Sumit AFAIK he was the author of quoted text.
>> 
>> >I still do not think that removing function and adding it back after few months
>> 
>> The problem is - why do you think we will need the function in future? Using this logic we could never remove any function from private libs.
>
>Lukas gave some justification in another part of this thread:
>
>"""
>Another problem is tat we use confdb_get_int on many places even
>though
>that there should be confdb_get_uint or confdb_get_long.
>We have few tickets which was testing -1 as unallowed value and it
>passed.
>
>So we can remove confdb_get_long atm and we might want to introduce
>later after implementation of config validation.
>"""
>
>Lukas, would you agree if we create a ticket like "Evaluate the usage of
>confdb_get_int()" for the next release. Then you can replace
>confdb_get_int() at places where you think more specific calls will fit
>better. Maybe it would even make sense to add calls like
>confdb_get_uint32() during this effort.
>
It should be done together with config validation.
ATM it's hard to say which integer types we will need.
But we might have separate tickets (divide&conquer)

LS


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list