+1 - didn't think of STRICT but yeah, that makes sense to me :-) regards,
Karl On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:06 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:46 AM Karl Pauls <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can’t we stay BC and just introduce a new command that has the new behavior > > and keep the old one as is?... > > Great idea, this is much simpler to implement and manage indeed, at > the cost of making the language slightly more complicated. > > I think having to differentiate between service and non-service users > when deleting is somewhat of an edge case, which a STRICT modifier can > address - so how about: > > DELETE STRICT USER -> delete user only if it's NOT a service user > DELETE STRICT SERVICE USER -> delete user only if it's a service user > DELETE USER -> delete both service and non-service user > DELETE SERVICE USER -> same but deprecated, indicated by an INFO log > > In all cases there's no failure if the target user doesn't exist, as > in the current version. > > -Bertrand (who's so happy to see Shared Neurons in action ;-) -- Karl Pauls [email protected]
