Possible bug in configurable failover

[Alan DeKok]

Brian Candler wrote:
> I understand that, so let me write it more clearly:
> 
> 1. the 'reject' state is being set at the beginning

  No.  It definitely doesn't do that.

> 2. the 'update' module returns 'updated' but this is discarded,
>    hence the return code remains at 'reject'

  "updated" is a lower priority than "reject".  See
doc/configurable_failover.  It's obscure, but useful.

> 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

  Well, yes.

> 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.

  Well, yes.

  As always, patches are welcome for suggested behavior.

  Alan DeKok.