Re: force_check_config - how to use?
According to Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> on Thu, 01/20/11 at 09:23:
How does the server now that some random module will expand some random string in the configuration file?
FYI, it's possible to have "%{...}" in a string which *isn't* dynamically expanded.
I think we are having a misunderstanding here. I don't disagree with what you say above.
Proper _syntax_ checking would have caught this gnarly typo. Discovering the actual problem was made more difficult by admins assuming that -XC was more than the above described superficial configuration test. Thank you for your repsonses.
The only way to test run-time expansions is by running packets through the server.
This is true - but this is not my current issue.
If you have a *patch* which helps, great. Until then...
You said yourself to not look at the source code. Patches are unlikely in that atmosphere. My point: _syntax_ checking for valid _syntax_ at a time _other_ than run time _is_ _possible_ without having to go the extra mile of semantic checking, as in, variable expansion. I am not talking about variable expansion, since that is only possible by running packets through the server (at run time). Since I am not allowed to inspect the source code, I would not have been able to discover the following comments relevant to this thread: conffile.c - Yep I should learn to use lex & yacc, or at least write a decent parser. conffile.c - FIXME: Add support for ${foo:-bar}, like in xlat.c conffile.c - The parser is getting to be evil. conffile.c - I really really really hate this file. conffile.c - More sanity checking. This is getting to be a horrible hack. conffile.c - yuck... xlat.c - Did I mention that this parser is garbage? If my employer would permit, and if you would allow me to look at the source, I would be happy to supply a patch. Neither of these are likely to happen in any event. This thread was created to shed some light on the issue. I do appreciate your comments. Thanks again. :-) Regards, web... -- William Bulley Email: web@umich.edu 72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->|
William Bulley wrote:
You said yourself to not look at the source code.
My intent was to say that looking at the source code was confusing you. You were looking at *load-time* expansion, which also happens. You were then confusing it with *run-time* expansion.
Patches are unlikely in that atmosphere.
You are unlikely to solve the problem if you are looking at the wrong thing. Was I wrong to tell you that?
My point: _syntax_ checking for valid _syntax_ at a time _other_ than run time _is_ _possible_ without having to go the extra mile of semantic checking, as in, variable expansion. I am not talking about variable expansion, since that is only possible by running packets through the server (at run time).
Sure. Supply a patch.
Since I am not allowed to inspect the source code,
The fact that the source is publicly available from many locations, *and* the project continually accepts patches shows that this comment is just you being whingy.
I would not have been able to discover the following comments relevant to this thread:
And the purpose of quoting those comments is... ? Nothing technical, that's for sure. As a hint: my feelings won't be hurt if you quote my opinions back to me. Nice try, though.
If my employer would permit,
That's your problem.
and if you would allow me to look at the source,
And that's also your problem. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt.
I would be happy to supply a patch.
Ah, yes. The "I *would* help, but you horrible people have been *mean* to me" defense. We've seen that lots, thanks.
Neither of these are likely to happen in any event. This thread was created to shed some light on the issue. I do appreciate your comments. Thanks again. :-)
Sure. Any time. Alan DeKok.
participants (2)
-
Alan DeKok -
William Bulley