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

[Petr Viktorin]

On 02/11/2013 02:07 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> 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.
>

Patches 161 & 167 needed a rebase.

-- 
Petr³
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-pviktori-0161-03-replace-getEntry-with-get_entry-or-get_entries-if-sc.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 20132 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20130214/31fc4afd/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-pviktori-0167-02-Remove-IPAdmin.sasl_interactive_bind_s.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2545 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20130214/31fc4afd/attachment-0001.bin>