something like huntgroups?

[Phil Mayers]

On 02/07/13 11:37, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
>
> On 2 Jul 2013, at 08:53, Phil Mayers <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2013 07:52 AM, Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote:
>>
>>> This may work for 2.x.x but definitely wont't work for 3.0 which
>>> uses direct DICT_ATTR pointer comparisons in some places (instead
>>> of comparing vendor/attribute number).
>>
>> So... what *can* you do with Vendor-X-Attr-Y?
>
> Use it to figure out which dictionary entries you're missing.

I was hoping for something more specific than that ;o)

So you can't compare them; can you set them:

update reply {
   Vendor-X-Attr-Y = 0xff
}

?

Can you xlat them?

update request {
   Tmp-String-0 = "%{Vendor-X-Attr-Y}"
}

?

Or are they basically display-only i.e. debug output and detail file?

>
> We can't modify the dictionaries dynamically after startup without
> locking the tree (on every read/write), else we could of added
> unknown attributes as octet type attributes.
>
> The compromise is to dynamically allocate fake DICT_ATTR entries for
> attributes which couldn't be resolved in the dictionaries, or that
> have values which don't match their data type (64bit value in integer
> type for example).
>
> As these DICT_ATTRs are dynamically allocated and unique to each
> request, comparing the pointers doesn't result in a match.

Ah.