Possible bug in configurable failover

[Brian Candler]

Alan DeKok wrote:
> > 1. The 'update reply' statement is returning 'reject'
> 
>   No.  Read the REST of the debug output.  The *previous* module is
> returning "reject", and the "update reply" statement doesn't change that.

I understand that, so let me write it more clearly:

1. the 'reject' state is being set at the beginning
2. the 'update' module returns 'updated' but this is discarded,
   hence the return code remains at 'reject'
3. the 'reject' result is being *ignored* when the update{} block completes
4. the 'reject' result causes a return when the outer if{} block completes

So: an update inside an 'if' causes a reject return; an update outside of an
'if' leaves the result as reject but doesn't return.

If that's the designed behaviour, it's pretty obscure.

Regards,

Brian.