Generating timing stats for ntlm_auth

[Arran Cudbard-Bell]

On 16 Oct 2013, at 17:05, Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com> wrote:

> Matthew Newton wrote:=
>> As a suggestion, it might be better to introduce new unambiguous syntax for
>> both cases, and then set the existing syntax to the same as v2
>> (for least surprises) and deprecate it? "if (noop) {..}" has
>> always confused me as to what status it's actually checking...
> 
>  Yeah.  New syntax is always better.
> 
>> How about
>> 
>>  if (rc:module == noop) {
>>    ...
>>  }
>> 
>> to check the latest module return code, and
>> 
>>  if (rc:group == reject) {
>>    ...
>>  }
> 
>  "rc" is a little unclear.

It's also not a list.

>> to check the current code in the group? Alternatives could be
>> "return:module" or "rc:section" or even "rc:last" and "rc:return"
>> for the last module that set it, and the current value that will
>> be returned from the section.
> 
>  Maybe.

I strongly disagree with this. We should not invent new syntax just for
this case. It should be a paircmp or an xlat.

>> Using control attributes might be better as Phil said to avoid the
>> virtual attribute stuff - just control:RC-Module or
>> control:RC-Group would make it unabmiguous.
> 
>  I just want to avoid updating / creating a new attribute for every
> module call.  It's expensive and annoying.
> 

Agreed.

Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb at freeradius.org>
FreeRADIUS Development Team