[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0335] Freeipa domain levels naming

[Martin Basti]

On 23.10.2015 09:34, Martin Basti wrote:
>
>
> On 23.10.2015 09:31, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>
>> On 10/22/2015 05:49 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On 22/10/15 11:29, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> in current master branch we have mixed usage of literals 0, 1 and
>>>> constants MIN_DOMAIN_LEVEL, MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL, and it is quite mess.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest to use names for domain levels:
>>>>
>>>> COMPAT_DOMAIN_LEVEL = 0
>>>> PROMOTION_DOMAIN_LEVEL = 1
>>>> UBER_NEW_FEATURE_DOMAIN_LEVEL = 2
>>>>
>>>> MIN_DOMAIN_LEVEL = COMPAT_DOMAIN_LEVEL (=0)
>>>> MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL = UBER_NEW_FEATURE_DOMAIN_LEVEL (=2)
>>>>
>>>> Benefits:
>>>> * ability to grep it in code
>>> Call them DOMAIN_LEVEL_0 and DOMAIN_LEVEL_1
>>>
>>>> * better readability in code
>>> Sure, but random names are not appropriate imo
>> I'm with you guys on this, it's a good idea. Let's go with the
>> DOMAIN_LEVEL_X naming though, it will be probably easier to remember.
>>
>> One thing to add to the discussion - MIN/MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL denotes only
>> the minimal/maximal domain level supported by the given IPA server, not
>> the minimal/maximal domain level ever shipped by FreeIPA project.
>>
>> Currently, those two coincide, but in general they might be different if
>> we ever raise the minimal level a decide to deprecate, say, domain level
>> 0 or 1. It's a subtle but important difference.
>>
>> Tomas
>
> Thank you all for your opinion,
>
> I will implement DOMAIN_LEVEL_X constants and send patch.
>
> Thanks.
> Martin^2
>

Patch attached.
O hope, I did not miss anything hardcoded.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-mbasti-0335-Domain-levels-use-constants-rather-than-hardcoded-va.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 9327 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20151023/eb475aa3/attachment.bin>