Bump. On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM, singh.janmejay <[email protected]> wrote:
> Also, tests seem to pass with the change I mentioned above (set replacing > the contents of field regardless of it being object, leaf or null). > > ============================================================================ > Testsuite summary for rsyslog 8.5.0 > ============================================================================ > # TOTAL: 125 # PASS: 120 # SKIP: 5 # XFAIL: 0 # FAIL: 0 # XPASS: 0 # ERROR: > 0 > ============================================================================ > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:11 PM, singh.janmejay <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Removing all the cases and replacing everything with just: >> >> json_object_object_add(parent, (char*)leaf, json); >> >> Changes the semantics to always replace the value, regardless of it being >> object, leaf or null. >> >> From the pov of set x = y, it seems like the right thing to do. >> >> But im sure the existing implementation is the way it is for a reason. >> >> In case its just a bug, should we go ahead with this replacement? (all >> cases removed and just one simple object_add call, no dereference of old >> value required either). >> >> In case its not a bug, what about having another statement (reset?) for >> this purpose? >> >> So, if user wants objects to be merged and object not be be replaced with >> leaf etc, they can use 'set $.foo = $.bar;' but if they want no-conditions >> replace-whatever semantics, they can use 'reset $.foo = $.bar;'. >> >> Ideally, may be we should call set something else, merge? but that may be >> bad from backward compatibility pov. >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:07 AM, singh.janmejay < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rainer, >>> >>> Im talking about msgAddJSON. Quickly glanced through your >>> commit(71a5122fa), but it doesn't seem to talk much about it. Why do we >>> disallow replacing an object with a non-object value? >>> >>> Also, not really the same issue, but another clarification in the same >>> area of code. Why do we merge objects when user has called 'set'? shouldn't >>> we replace old json_object with new one? >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Janmejay >>> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Janmejay >> http://codehunk.wordpress.com >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Janmejay > http://codehunk.wordpress.com > -- Regards, Janmejay http://codehunk.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
