On 10/17/2012 08:23 PM, John Dennis wrote:
On 10/12/2012 04:35 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 10/11/2012 06:53 PM, John Dennis wrote:
On 04/28/2012 09:50 AM, John Dennis wrote:
On 04/27/2012 04:45 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 04/20/2012 08:07 PM, John Dennis wrote:
Ticket #2622

If we get an error from dogtag we always did raise a
CertificateOperationError exception with a message describing the
problem. Unfortuanately that error message did not go into the log,
just sent back to the caller. The fix is to format the error message
and send the same message to both the log and use it to initialize
CertificateOperationError exception.

The patch contains five hunks with almost exactly the same code,
applying the same changes in each case.
Wouldn't it make sense to move the _sslget call, parsing, and error
handling to a common method?

Yes it would and ordinarily I would have taken that approach.
However on
IRC (or phone?) with Rob we decided not to perturb the code too much
this particular issue because we intend to refactor the code later.
was one of the last patches destined for 2.2 which is why we took the
more conservative approach.

I went back and looked at this. It's not practical to collapse
everything into a common subroutine unless you paramaterize the heck out
of a common subroutine. That's because all the patched locations have
subtly different things going on, different parameters to sslget
followed by different result parsing and handling. In retrospect I think
it's clearer to keep things separate rather than one subroutine that
needs a lot of parameters and/or convoluted logic to handle each unique

I don't agree that it's clearer, but I guess that's debatable.

Part of the problem is the dogtag interface. Every command has the
potential to behave differently making it difficult to work with. I
wrote this code originally and got it reduced to as many common parts as
I could. At some point soon we'll be switching to a new dogtag REST
interface which hopefully will allow for greater commonality due to
interface consistency.

In summary: I still stand by the original patch.

However, I see no reason to not use a method such as:

def raise_certop_error(self, method_name, error=None, detail=None):
      """Log and raise a CertificateOperationError

      :param method_name: Name of the method in which the error occured
      :param error: Error string. If None, "Unable to communicate with
          CMS" is used.
      :param detail: Detailed or low-level information. Will be put in

to at least get rid of the repetition this patch is adding - almost the
same format+log+raise sequence is used twice in each of the five hunks.

Added a utility function as suggested. Revised patch attached.

This looks much better. I found one more issue, though.

diff --git a/ipaserver/plugins/dogtag.py b/ipaserver/plugins/dogtag.py
index baa41ad..66fef57 100644
--- a/ipaserver/plugins/dogtag.py
+++ b/ipaserver/plugins/dogtag.py
@@ -1233,6 +1233,27 @@ class ra(rabase.rabase):
              self.password = ''
          super(ra, self).__init__()

+    def raise_certificate_operation_error(self, func_name, err_msg=None, 
+        """
+        :param func_name: function name where error occurred
+        :param err_msg:   diagnostic error message, if not supplied it will be
+                          'Unable to communicate with CMS'
+        :param detail:    extra information that will be appended to err_msg
+                          inside a parenthesis
+        Raise a CertificateOperationError and log the error message.
+        """
+        if err_msg is None:
+            err_msg = _('Unable to communicate with CMS')
+        if detail is not None:
+            err_msg += ' (%s)' % detail

Here I get TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'Gettext' and 'unicode'. Until our Gettext class supports addition (part of #3188), please use `err_msg = u'%s (%s)' % (err_msg, detail)` instead.


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to