[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 146-164 LDAP code refactoring (Part 4)

[Petr Viktorin]

On 02/01/2013 03:38 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 10:24 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>> On 1.2.2013 09:47, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2013 07:01 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>> On 31.1.2013 11:00, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>> On 01/30/2013 10:53 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/29/2013 04:39 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/28/2013 04:09 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/28/2013 09:34 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25.1.2013 14:54, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/24/2013 03:06 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/24/2013 10:43 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/22/2013 04:04 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/21/2013 06:38 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/17/2013 06:27 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the first batch of changes aimed to consolidate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LDAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each should be a self-contained change that doesn't break
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> Since this patchset is becoming unwieldy, I've put it in a public
>>>>>>>>>> repo
>>>>>>>>>> that I'll keep updated. The following command will fetch it into
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> "pviktori-ldap-refactor" branch:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      git fetch git://github.com/encukou/freeipa
>>>>>>>>>> ldap-refactor:pviktori-ldap-refactor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer if you used the semantics of .get() for .get_single() as
>>>> well (i.e. when no default value is provided, None is assumed) in patch
>>>> 152. Or is there a reason not to?
>>>
>>> I think you should always have to write extra code to supress exceptions
>>> (“Errors should never pass silently”). In Python, the easiest/shortest
>>> getter you can write will typically raise an exception when the value is
>>> missing (e.g. `d[k]` for dicts, `getattr(a, b)` for objects).
>>>
>>
>> That is true, but I think consistency is more important here - the name
>> suggests the method behaves the same way .get() does. If you insist on
>> keeping the current behavior, would you at least consider renaming the
>> method (perhaps to just "single" or "single_value")?
>>
>> (This is just a nitpick, so don't worry too much about it.)
>
> Alright, I renamed get_single to single_value().
>
> I also rebased to current master.

Updating patch 115 to take recent changes in replica-manage into account.


-- 
Petr³
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-pviktori-0155-02-Replace-getList-by-a-get_entries-method.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 22355 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20130211/513dd129/attachment.bin>