On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Robert Story <rst...@freesnmp.com> wrote:
> BF> The tests:
> BF> https://github.com/fenner/net-snmp/commit/
> 41be11b4e3ab93cda376bf044de2f77534b56518
> BF> (T180 and T181 fail. T181 is testing the new functionality in
> BF> 5.8, so, no biggie. T180 tests functionality that worked in
> BF> 5.7.3. T182 and T183 pass; this maybe makes the other failures
> BF> less bad since if a user wants this behavior they can configure
> BF> the session using trapsess instead of trap*sink).
> BF> (I think the "myip" perl script belongs in support, not in
> BF> fulltests/default/; I'll move it before i commit to the master
> BF> branch.)
>
> I'm going to skip these for rc1. What do we need to make the tests
> pass?
>
T182 and T183 should pass now. T180 and T181 failures have the same root
cause: netsnmp_udpipv4base_tspec_transport() doesn't zero out the default
"161" port that netsnmp_sockaddr_in2() fills in. Compare the code
in netsnmp_udpipv4base_transport() that's checking the clientaddr for
having a port, and zeroes it out if not (the "have_port" check). There is
no similar code in netsnmp_udpipv4base_tspec_transport().
One plausible answer is to factor out the code in
netsnmp_udpipv4base_transport() (although I am dubious of
NETSNMP_DS_LIB_CLIENT_ADDR_USES_PORT code, and don't think that should be
copied to the tspec_transport() case).
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
