On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 07:26:49AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (01/06/14 19:23), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 06:22:05PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (27/05/14 16:32), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 01:03:42PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 11:24 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> > O
>> >> > >The fact of passing pointer to the same area in memory to 2
separate
>> >> > >arguments of sss_parse_name() is what I called potential
source of bugs.
>> >> > >You said "It seems strange to me" so I hope you know
what I mean.
>> >> > It is strange, but it isn't wrong.
>> >> > * orig_name refers to old string
>> >> > * homedir_ctx->username will refer to new string.
>> >> > I need to use old string in debug message if function fails.
>> >> I missed that.
>> >>
>> >> I did some testing and all seems to be working, so ACK to all patches.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In the third patch, you need to add the file
>> >src/man/include/override_homedir.xml into src/man/po/po4a.cfg to make sure
>> You ment homedir_substring.xml
>
>Yes :)
>
>>
>> >it's processed for translations.
>> >
>> Added
>>
>> >Can you ask some native English speaker to check the contents of the
>> >text added?
>> >
>> >As a side note, it would be nice to treat any refactoring as an
>> >opportunity for adding more unit tests. Neither expand_homedir_template
>> >nor sss_parse_name_const have any tests.
>> The test for expand_homedir_template is in separate commit,
>> because patches with refactoring are complicated enough.
>>
>> LS
>
>Thanks for the unit test!
>
>I don't have any other comments about functionality or code, just please
>amend the man pages as Stephen suggested.
will do after agreement about allocation of homedir_ctx.
I do not want to send patchset more than once :-).
>
>One more improvement might be that you don't have to allocate the
>homedir_ctx most of the time,
It is just a *one* allocation and reason is to have a zero initialized
structure. If you really want to avoid one call of talloc_zero I can replace it
with structure allocated on stack and zeroing structure with memset.
We have a ZERO_STRUCT call precisely for this reason.
This patch is targeted for sssd-1-11 and we're close to the 1.11.6
deadline. If you think you can spin up another version quickly, then
please do, otherwise let's clean up the unneeded allocation in 1.12.