Hello, Am Freitag, 29. Mai 2015 schrieb Steve Beattie: > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 05:59:58PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote: > > this patch adds severity() to the BaseRule class > > > > severity() will, surprise!, return the severity of a rule, or > > '--' if a *Rule class doesn't implement the severity() function > > This seems like an error state/bug if it's not implemented. Wouldn't > it be better to raise AppArmorBug() here? We already do this for > other unimplemented abstract methods (which is also a hint that the > method should get the FIXME comment like the other abstract methods > have).
I can imagine why you are asking, but I tend to say no ;-) Even if it would be nice to have it for all rule types, severity() is an optional feature (as opposed to _parse() or _is_covered_localvars()), so if we change it to raise an exception, we'll need something like *Rule.features = ['severity'] to give the calling code a way to prevent calling a non-implemented severity(). That would make the code more complex (we need severity() _and_ features[], with the risk that features[] gets out of sync) without a real win. (We might need *Rule.features[] or *Rule.available_qualifiers[] nevertheless for audit and allow/deny so that aa-logprof and aa- mergeprof can decide which buttons to display, but that's another topic.) > > Also add a test that checks the return value in BaseRule. > > > > > > > > [ 19-baserule-add-severity.diff ] Regards, Christian Boltz -- > It is funny that most bugs people report here are KDE bugs. I have not > experienced those either with XFCE nor with GNOME3. Perhaps that's a corollary of most openSUSE people using KDE. I haven't seen many Windows bugs reported here either, by your logic we should just put that on the DVD. [> Stefan Seyfried and Will Stephenson in opensuse-factory] -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
