I'm sure we will get there, in my opinion is not a question of if we will get there but when. The when depends on how many people will patiently help us with feedback and patches like you and Oliver are doing.
Projects like OpenWISP, OpenWRT, NetJSON and others have been growing and improving steadily now for some time, so we just have to keep it going. In case you want to help us get there faster, the Help us to grow page <http://openwisp.io/docs/general/help-us.html> has some suggestions of things that should not cost our users much to do, yet they help us to grow. Federico On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 5:01 PM JeroenR <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Federico, > > Thanks for your reply, yeah i need to rethink my templates. i going to > read some info first :-) > For sure there are other priorities, there are many cool things to > implement, this is a awesome project with great potential. I work with > Ruckus devices and controllers at work and it would be great to switch to > fully open software in a couple years. > > Greets > > Op zondag 23 september 2018 09:59:44 UTC+2 schreef Federico Capoano: > >> Hi Jeroen, >> >> yes it is possible to override templates and there are specific ways the >> override work. >> In short: lists will be summed up (usually you have a base list on which >> you want to add to and don't want to redefine the whole list in each >> override), strings or numbers will be simply overridden. >> >> The documentation of the configuration engine of OpenWISP >> <http://netjsonconfig.openwisp.org/en/latest/general/basics.html#template> >> explains how combining configuration templates works, including using >> multiple templates, overriding and how the overriding is done. >> >> I highly suggest you to take the time to read the whole page. >> >> The OpenWRT Backend documentation page >> <http://netjsonconfig.openwisp.org/en/latest/backends/openwrt.html> is >> also very useful. >> >> Regarding having to duplicate the bridge members definition because >> members are slightly different: maybe you don't need to do that. >> There are two possible ways you may be able to solve this problem: >> >> 1. you could simply have all the possible members defined in the bridge, >> OpenWRT will ignore members if the interface they refer to does not exist. >> >> 2. you could create a base template with an empty bridge (no members), >> and then additional templates for all the frequent membership combinations >> you need; then when assigning the templates, make sure the base template >> comes first and the specialized template comes later >> >> Regarding the redundancy of the interface definition: it's true that >> sometimes the definition in /etc/config/network is not needed. >> It is needed only in certain cases as Oliver was explaining, but it is >> done this way to keep the implementation simple. It could be improved in >> the future but I think we all agree there are other things that have more >> priority right now. >> >> I hope this helps! >> >> Federico >> >> >> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 12:01:29 AM UTC+2, JeroenR wrote: >>> >>> I just discovered the device override :-) >>> >>> I question, it seems that the bridge members are appended instead of >>> overridden. >>> >>> Example template: >>> { >>> "interfaces": [ >>> { >>> "type": "bridge", >>> "bridge_members": [ >>> "eth0.52" >>> ], >>> "name": "wlan52", >>> "autostart": true, >>> "network": "vif_vlan_52", >>> "disabled": false, >>> "addresses": [], >>> "wireless": { >>> "mode": "access_point", >>> "radio": "radio0", >>> "ssid": "Wifi1", >>> "encryption": { >>> "key": "************", >>> "protocol": "wpa2_personal", >>> "cipher": "ccmp" >>> }, >>> "isolate": false, >>> "wmm": true, >>> "wpa_disable_eapol_key_retries": true >>> }, >>> "delegate": 0, >>> "force_link": 1 >>> } >>> ] >>> } >>> Bridge member "eth0.52" need to be "eth0.1" on device level, so i add >>> following config at device: >>> { >>> "interfaces": [ >>> { >>> "type": "bridge", >>> "bridge_members": [ >>> "eth0.1" >>> ], >>> "name": "wlan52", >>> "autostart": true, >>> "network": "vif_vlan_52", >>> "disabled": false, >>> "addresses": [], >>> "delegate": 0, >>> "force_link": 1 >>> } >>> ] >>> } >>> >>> But i get the following results: >>> >>> config interface 'vif_vlan_52' >>> option auto '1' >>> option delegate '0' >>> option enabled '1' >>> option force_link '1' >>> option ifname 'eth0.52 eth0.1' >>> option proto 'none' >>> option type 'bridge' >>> >>> Is this expected behavior? How can i delete the template bridge member? >>> >>> >>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OpenWISP" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenWISP" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
