On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 10:01 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
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.
If it is on the stack, we can simply declare it with a C99 initializer of 0 ? Or is this structure reused (hence needs resetting) more than once ?
Simo.