Hi Jens,
Yes there is a bug. I've included a potential fix in the bug,
however, perhaps there's another, so let me walk though this with you:
The SC manifest is validated. Yes, that's not obvious that we strip it out
of its comment block if presented in a combined form. It is believed that
most admins will prefer to keep separate SC and AI manifests from the
criteria manifest so one will have a criteria manifest where the SC is
free standing in a normal XML file:
root at opensolaris:~# cat /tmp/test.xml
<ai_criteria_manifest>
<ai_criteria name="Arch">
<value>
sun4u
</value>
</ai_criteria>
<ai_manifest_file URI="/tmp/ai.xml"/>
<sc_manifest_file name="AI" URI="/tmp/sc.xml"/>
</ai_criteria_manifest>
root at opensolaris:~# cat /tmp/sc.xml
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE service_bundle SYSTEM
"/usr/share/lib/xml/dtd/service_bundle.dtd.1">
<service_bundle type="profile" name="name">
<service name="ai_properties" version="1" type="service">
<instance name="default" enabled="true">
<property_group name="ai" type="application">
<propval name="username" type="astring" value="jack"/>
<!-- Test --> <propval name="userpass" type="astring"
value="9Nd/cwBcNWFZg"/>
<propval name="description" type="astring"
value="default_user"/>
<propval name="rootpass" type="astring"
value="$5$VgppCOxA$ycFmYW4ObRRHhtsGEygDdexk5bugqgSiaSR9niNCouC"/>
<propval name="timezone" type="astring"
value="US/Pacific"/>
</property_group>
</instance>
</service>
</service_bundle>
This is the desired way for an admin to cleanly interact with the XML
files (and sadly where the bug you've pointed me to exists). The "test"
comment will get passed into the smushed format which it should not.
The way the AI webserver stores files is in a smushed format where the
criteria are stripped off and the AI and SC manifests are in one file. It
is also possible for an admin to use this format. The SC manifest is
stored as a comment due to being DTD based in a RelaxNG defined XML file.
As such, if one has a comment in the SC manifest comment block it will
fail validation as there will be "extra" content in the file -- the reset
of the SC manifest -- e.g.:
[...]
</ai_manifest>
</ai_embedded_manifest>
<sc_embedded_manifest name = "AI">
<!-- <?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE service_bundle SYSTEM "/usr/share/lib/xml/dtd/service_bundle.dtd.1">
<service_bundle type="profile" name="name">
<service name="ai_properties" version="1" type="service">
<instance name="default" enabled="true">
<property_group name="ai" type="application">
<propval name="username" type="astring" value="jack"/>
<!--Fail Validation -->
<propval name="userpass" type="astring"
value="9Nd/cwBcNWFZg"/>
<propval name="description" type="astring"
value="default_user"/>
<propval name="rootpass" type="astring"
value="$5$VgppCOxA$ycFmYW4ObRRHhtsGEygDdexk5bugqgSiaSR9niNCouC"/>
<propval name="timezone" type="astring"
value="US/Pacific"/>
</property_group>
</instance>
</service>
</service_bundle>
-->
</sc_embedded_manifest>
</ai_criteria_manifest>
For a potential fix for the first case which is a bug from what was
intended see my e-mail for a code review on bug 7503.
Thank you,
Clay
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Jens Deppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wanting to submit a bug and a related RFE against the parsing of the SC
> manifest data. The RFE relates to the fact that the SC manifest is parsed as
> plain text and not as XML, thus XML comments end up being ignored.
>
> I've seen some comments stating that the parsing may eventually be done by an
> actual XML parser so my question is whether this work is already covered by
> an existing RFE. Depending on the state of that work, would also make
> submitting a bug moot.
>
> --Jens
> _______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>
