<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/07/2013 05:49 PM, Ana Krivokapic wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:51B20107.4050405@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/07/2013 12:15 PM, Tomas Babej wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:51B1B2DF.3050101@redhat.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/31/2013 12:08 PM, Ana Krivokapic wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:51A87688.2070107@redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hello, This patch addresses ticket <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3635">https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3635</a>. </pre> <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset> <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Freeipa-devel@redhat.com">Freeipa-devel@redhat.com</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel</a></pre> </blockquote> Hi, the patch itself works as it should, I have only some refactoring comments: 1.) There already is a add_range method that is called from within trust_add's execute() and handles some range validation (currently only whether domain's SID of new and existing range are equal, my patch 67 add some more). Your patch introduces a new method validate_range() that is called from execute(), which leads to some duplication of the logic, mainly two same calls to the API (getting the info about the old range via idrange_show) I'd rather we keep all the validation in one place, preferably inside the add_range method or refactored out of it in the new method that is called only from add_range(). 2.) That being said, other parts of refactoring are nice and make code more clear, +1. Tomas </blockquote> My first instinct was to place this validation in the add_range() method. However, add_range() is called after the trust itself is added, and validation introduced by this patch needs to happen before the trust is added (we need to prevent the addition of trust in case the validation fails). As for the code duplication, you are right about that. I tried to minimize duplication - resulting updated patch attached. <pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">-- Regards, Ana Krivokapic Associate Software Engineer FreeIPA team Red Hat Inc.</pre> </blockquote> While this is a nice improvement from the code repetition point of view, the patch still has one flaw as I see it - the range validation happens at two separate places: Once here(already in the code): <meta name="qrichtext" content="1">  if old_range: old_dom_sid = old_range['result']['ipanttrusteddomainsid'][0]; if old_dom_sid == dom_sid: return raise errors.ValidationError(name=_('range exists'), error=_('ID range with the same name but different ' \ 'domain SID already exists. The ID range for ' \ 'the new trusted domain must be created manually.')) <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <style type="text/css"> p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; } </style> And once here(added by your patch): + if not self.validate_range(*keys, **options): + raise errors.ValidationError( + name=_('id range'), + error=_( + 'An id range already exists for this trust. ' + 'You should either delete the old range, or ' + 'exclude --base-id/--range-size options from the command.' I'd suggest we have one common place, say validate_range() function as we have now, that contains all the checks (more coming in the future for sure). That would mean that the whole trust-add command will fail in the case that "ID range with the same name but different domain SID already exists", since we now call validate_range() within execute() method. I checked with Alexander and we agreed that this is more desired behaviour. This would also result to reducement of the number of API calls, which is a nice benefit. Tomas </body> </html>