On 26.8.2015 12:00, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 26.8.2015 11:48, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 26.8.2015 10:51, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 30.7.2015 08:55, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 29.7.2015 v 17:43 Petr Vobornik napsal(a):
On 07/29/2015 05:13 PM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
On 07/29/2015 01:25 PM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 29.7.2015 v 12:20 Martin Babinsky napsal(a):
Initial attempt to implement
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4517

Some points to discuss:

1.) name of the config entries: currently the option names are derived
from CLI options but have underscores in them instead of dashes. Maybe
keeping the CLI option names also for config entries will make it
easier
for the user to transfer their CLI options from scripts to config
files.

NACK. There is no point in generating config names from CLI names, which
are generated from knob names - use knob names directly.

The problem is that in some cases the  cli_name does not map directly to
knob name, leading in different naming of CLI options and config
entries, confusion and mayhem.

What works for CLI may not work for config files and vice versa. For example,
this works for CLI:

      --no-ntp
      --no-forwarders
      --forwarder 1.2.3.4 --forwarder 5.6.7.8

but this works better in config file:

      ntp = False
      forwarders =
      forwarders = 1.2.3.4, 5.6.7.8

Personally I would say that Honza's approach is more eye-candy but IMHO *not*
more usable - and I prefer usability. Alexander's approach requires no other
documentation that `ipa-server-install --help` or even better just
copy&pasting arguments users already have in scripts to a file.

In this case I believe that using anything incompatible with CLI arguments is
not worth because it requires yet another layer of documentation to make it
usable.

BTW GnuPG does the very same thing as Alexander mentioned with
.gnupg/gpg.conf, i.e. the config file simply accepts all options from command
line, with the same names and parameters - and that that is it.

Sorry, but no. The installers are supposed to be callable from many different
kinds of often incompatible environments. How exactly would you imagine e.g. a
Python API to look like given it should use the same conventions as CLI? Like
this:

     server_install(['no_ntp', ('forwarder', '1.2.3.4'), ('forwarder',
'5.6.7.8')])

? I would very much prefer if it looked like this:

     server_install(ntp=False, forwarders=['1.2.3.4', '5.6.7.8'])

which is pretty much the same I suggested for config files and better reflects
the semantics of setting configuration options.

I'm just saying that:
1. API & user-interface on CLI are not the same, so there is no need to
strictly use the same names in API and CLI (which we apparently do not do,
compare --help and internal knobs).

2. User interface self-consistency (CLI options vs. configuration file) is
more important that consistency between config file and API.

User interface is not necessarily only CLI and config files and I would prefer not to mutilate the user interface in general with CLI specifics. If you want 100% CLI compatibility you can do the following and don't bother with any new code in IPA at all:

    $ echo --no-ntp >options
    $ echo --forwarder 1.2.3.4 >>options
    $ echo --forwarder 5.6.7.8 >>options
    $ ipa-server-install $(cat options)

Interface consistency is important in any case, and providing it in one place just to sacrifice it in other place does not really improve anything.


Petr^2 Spacek

These are some offenders from `ipaserver/install/server.py`:
http://fpaste.org/249424/18226114/

On the other hand, this can be an incentive to finally put an end to
inconsistent option/knob naming across server/replica/etc. installers.

Yes please.


If the names are different than cli names, then they should be made
discoverable somehow or be documented.

IMHO documenting them is easy.



2.) Config sections: there is currently only one valid section named
'[global]' in accordance with the format of 'default.conf'. Should we
have separate sections equivalent to option groups in CLI (e.g.
[basic],
[certificate system], [dns])?

No, because they would have to be maintained forever. For example, some
options are in wrong sections and we wouldn't be able to move them.

I'm also more inclined to a single section, at least for now since we
are pressed for time with this RFE.

That's not to say that we should ditch Alexander's idea about separate
sections with overrides for different hosts. We should consider it as a
future enhancement to this feature once the basic plumbing is in place.

Right.


3.) Handling of unattended mode when specifying a config file:
Currently there is no connection between --config-file and unattended
mode. So when you run ipa-server-install using config file, you still
get asked for missing stuff. Should '--config-file' automatically imply
'--unattended'?

The behavior should be the same as if you specified the options on the
command line. So no, --config-file should not imply --unattended.

That sound reasonable. the code behaves this way already so no changes
here.


There are probably other issues to discuss. Feel free to write
email/ping me on IRC.


(I haven't looked at the patch yet.)

Please take a look at it ASAP. I am on PTO tomorrow and on Friday, but I
will find time to work at it in the evening if you send me you comments.

1) IMO the option should be in the top-level option section, not in a separate
group (use "parser.add_option()").

Also maybe rename it to --config, AFAIK that's what is usually used.

A short name ("-c"?) would be nice too.

Nitpick: if the option is named --config-file, dest should be "config_file",
to make it easier to look it up in the code.


2) Please don't duplicate the knob retrieval code, store knobs in a list and
pass that as an argument to parse_config_file.


3) I'm not sure about using newline as a list separator. I don't know about
other IPA components, but SSSD in particular uses commas, maybe we should be
consistent with that?


4) Booleans should be assignable either True or False, i.e. do not use
_parse_knob to parse them.


--
Jan Cholasta

--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to