On 25.07.2011 17:13, Dmitri Pal wrote: > On 07/25/2011 10:12 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: >> My only problem with --all is it means we'd have an option with >> different meaning in different contexts. Would this cause confusion? > > Yes this is exactly where I am coming from too. I see where you are going but the problem here is that original --all has one important issue: - it changes CLI output even if I don't use output.Entry() in the plugin's has_output spec.
This creates confusion from other perspective -- we can't use --all for saying 'I want the simulation to apply to ALL IPA enabled rules' and this makes impossible to distinguish two cases: - I want to run simulation against enabled IPA rules and the ones I specified in --rules command *with* detailed information which rules passed and which are not (ipa hbactest --rules=[list] --all --detail). - I want to run simulation against enabled IPA rules and the ones I specified in --rules command *without* detailed information which rules passed and which are not (ipa hbactest --rules=[list] --all). I had to override output_for_cli() to disable this behavior. I'd love to disable standard --all and --raw for hbactest command because they make little sense for it. If --all is seen as confusion with regards to uniform handling with other options, I can propose two following options: --enabled -- add all enabled IPA rules into simulation --disabled -- add all disabled IPA rules into simulation ipa [...] --rules=[list] --[enabled|disabled] [--detail] would cover: 1. Test user against rules specified in --rules, optionally adding all enabled (disabled) IPA rules and show detailed information which rules passed and which not. 2. Test user against rules specified in --rules, optionally adding all enabled (disabled) IPA rules and report whether user would pass the check. -- / Alexander Bokovoy _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipa-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel