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

[Tomas Babej]

On 10/23/2015 12:49 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

I think we can safely hardcode domain levels as numbers in the error
messages. Substituting {dl} for constants.DOMAIN_LEVEL_0 in the error
message makes little sense to me, as the value of
constants.DOMAIN_LEVEL_0 will not ever change.