On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 09:42:32AM +0100, Christopher Faulet wrote: > ..Le 21/11/2020 à 06:15, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > > I looked at the patch, it's OK regarding this and most of the other > > stuff, except one thing, it mixes ACT_HTTP_* and PAT_MATCH_* and there > > is some breakage there, because the HTTP action being set to PAT_MATCH_STR > > for example sets it to value 5 which is ACT_HTTP_SET_NICE, etc. So you > > must only have ACT_* values in your rule->action field. > > > > Maciej, there are two possibilities here. Either you duplicate the delete > > action to have DEL_STR, DEL_BEG, DEL_SUB etc, and you just set the right > > action based on the matching method you found during parsing, or you > > extend act_rule.arg.http to add a matching method for the delete action. > > I tend to consider that the former is cleaner and simpler, given that > > we're really performing a few different actions there, which are all > > derivatives of the delete action. > > Hi, > > rule->action value may be set to any value if an action function is defined > (rule->action_ptr). ACT_* are only used for action without action function, > to perform a switch case on it. That's documented this way : > > unsigned int action; /* ACT_* or any meaningful value if action_ptr is > defined */
OK, I wasn't aware of this, seeing only ACT_* there. Fine by me then. Willy
