<div dir="ltr">Okay. Sounds good. Update patch attached. </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Martin Kosek <<a href="mailto:mkosek@redhat.com" target="_blank">mkosek@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Ah, right. But I still think that's a too-early optimization. We can add this callback when this necessity arises. Until then, I would rather prefer to keep the code clean. Martin <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> On 07/31/2014 03:17 PM, Gabe Alford wrote: > Right. The reason I added it in there is that I could see that in the > future trust_type could be more than just 'ad' (maybe 'ipa', 'krb', etc?) > which at that point I'm not sure a default makes sense. So, I thought to go > ahead and add the check for future use cases so that it doesn't have to be > remembered later. However, maybe that was just a bad idea as right now it > is a pointless check? > > Gabe > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:18 AM, Alexander Bokovoy <<a href="mailto:abokovoy@redhat.com">abokovoy@redhat.com</a>> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Martin Kosek wrote: >> >>> Sorry for going late in the game, just a quick question - why do we want >>> to add >>> this part: >>> >>> + if trust_type is None: >>> + kw['trust_type'] = self.prompt_param(self.params[ >>> 'trust_type']) >>> >>> ? I do not see a reason for adding a special interactive prompt callback >>> for >>> that - trust_type has a default value "ad". CCing Alexander to double >>> check. >>> >> I also don't understand why you need to ask interactively for the >> trust_type as it defaults to non-empty value and this value is the only >> one we currently support. >> >> >> -- >> / Alexander Bokovoy >> > </div></div></blockquote></div> </div>