[PATCH] Make TTL configurable for dynamic dns

[James Hogarth]

Hi all,

Following the discussion previously for #1476 attached is a patch to
current master that does the following:

1) If there is no value in sssd.conf it assumes a default of 1200 to
fall in line with the current IPA code
 2) Adds a new option to sssd.conf - ipa_dyndns_ttl - which is an
integer in seconds for the TTL of the record

I've tested this on F17 with nothing set and with a few different
integers set and verified on IPA (via ipa dnsrecord-show --all) that
the TTL has been set correctly.

Comments would be most welcome :)

Kind regards,

James

[James Hogarth]

> Comments would be most welcome :)

As per discussion on IRC the patch has bene reformatted properly with
git format-patch... please see attached.

Regards,

James

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 12:46 +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> > Comments would be most welcome :)
>
> As per discussion on IRC the patch has bene reformatted properly with
> git format-patch... please see attached.

Functional ack. There are two minor whitespace issues:
You have a line comprised of nothing but spaces in sssd-ipa.5.xml and a
tab in create_nsupdate_message() when setting ttl = 1200

[James Hogarth]

> Functional ack. There are two minor whitespace issues:
> You have a line comprised of nothing but spaces in sssd-ipa.5.xml and a
> tab in create_nsupdate_message() when setting ttl = 1200

I've cleaned this up and properly configured eclipse to only use
spaces and no tabs...

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 03:29:41PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> > Functional ack. There are two minor whitespace issues:
> > You have a line comprised of nothing but spaces in sssd-ipa.5.xml and a
> > tab in create_nsupdate_message() when setting ttl = 1200
>
> I've cleaned this up and properly configured eclipse to only use
> spaces and no tabs...

Looks good to me, too.

Ack.

However, I'm going to postpone pushing the patch until we're done with
1.9.0, because the patch would break string freeze.

I don't think there will be any conflicts caused by unrelated changes.

[James Hogarth]

> Looks good to me, too.
>
> Ack.
>
> However, I'm going to postpone pushing the patch until we're done with
> 1.9.0, because the patch would break string freeze.
>
> I don't think there will be any conflicts caused by unrelated changes.

Hi guys,

Apologies for being away a bit but work picked up pace and that's
where I get my funds after all...

I see that the 1.10 branch is about to happen so thought it sane
(given the history of this patch) to give a reminder to this...

I have not tried applying the patch to the current HEAD as of today -
would that be desirable with a fresh patch proposal for 1.10?

Kind regards,

James

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:04:44PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> > Looks good to me, too.
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> > However, I'm going to postpone pushing the patch until we're done with
> > 1.9.0, because the patch would break string freeze.
> >
> > I don't think there will be any conflicts caused by unrelated changes.
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Apologies for being away a bit but work picked up pace and that's
> where I get my funds after all...
>
> I see that the 1.10 branch is about to happen so thought it sane
> (given the history of this patch) to give a reminder to this...
>
> I have not tried applying the patch to the current HEAD as of today -
> would that be desirable with a fresh patch proposal for 1.10?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> James

Hi John,

Thank you for the reminder. I had the patch tagged as "push" in my
client but I'm glad you're still keeping an eye on it.

I'll be branching off 1.9 and 1.10 (aka master) tomorrow on Monday. You
don't need to rebase your patch, I checked it a couple of days ago and
it applied cleanly.

[James Hogarth]

> Hi John,
>
> Thank you for the reminder. I had the patch tagged as "push" in my
> client but I'm glad you're still keeping an eye on it.
>
> I'll be branching off 1.9 and 1.10 (aka master) tomorrow on Monday. You
> don't need to rebase your patch, I checked it a couple of days ago and
> it applied cleanly.

Hi Jakub,

I'm very glad it applied cleanly... now I've got a little more time
I'm going to look at the IPA side of DNS TTL and hopefully get a
commit accepted to make that a little nicer on the UI and
configuration...

Thanks for checking the rebase situation.

James (not John ;) )

[Jakub Hrozek]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:09:57AM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Thank you for the reminder. I had the patch tagged as "push" in my
> > client but I'm glad you're still keeping an eye on it.
> >
> > I'll be branching off 1.9 and 1.10 (aka master) tomorrow on Monday. You
> > don't need to rebase your patch, I checked it a couple of days ago and
> > it applied cleanly.
>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> I'm very glad it applied cleanly... now I've got a little more time
> I'm going to look at the IPA side of DNS TTL and hopefully get a
> commit accepted to make that a little nicer on the UI and
> configuration...
>
> Thanks for checking the rebase situation.
>
> James (not John ;) )

^^^^^^
Oops, sorry, that was an honest mistake...

Pushed to master.

Thank you again for your contribution!