Hello Tim, On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 18:56, Tim Düsterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: > > Lukas, > > Am 22.06.20 um 18:41 schrieb Lukas Tribus: > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 18:16, Tim Duesterhus <t...@bastelstu.be> wrote: > >> > >> Fix parsing of configurations if the configuration file does not end with > >> an LF. > > > > ... but it's also warning about it at the same time. > > > > So it's unclear to me: > > > > Do we support a configuration without trailing LF or not? > > > > If yes, there is no point in a warning (just as < 2.1). > > If no, we should abort and error out. > > > > We can "just warn" if we plan to deprecate it in future release, and > > at that point, explain that fact. But I find it strange to warn about > > something, without a clear indication about *WHY* (unsupported, > > deprecated, etc). > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > I consider leaving out a trailing newline a bug for these reasons: > > [...] > A non-terminated line thus is not a line and handling non-terminated > lines is a bit wonky.
What you are explaining is that the behavior is basically undefined, so in my opinion we should just flat out reject this configuration. s/ha_warning/ha_alert ? If we want to continue with a warning only (to not break older configs), let's elaborate, because the warning just explains that the line is not terminated, but not if and why that is actually a problem, which I don't like to leave as an exercise for the reader (user). ha_warning("parsing [%s:%d]: line is not terminated by a newline (LF / '\\n'), this may lead to undefined behavior.\n", ha_warning("parsing [%s:%d]: line should be terminated by a newline (LF / '\\n'), otherwise undefined behavior may occur.\n", Something like that? But really, I think we should just reject this instead (then the text suffices, because it actually stops working). -- lukas