[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-14 Thread William Brown
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 17:00, Mark Reynolds wrote: > > > On 6/13/19 4:02 AM, William Brown wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jun 2019, at 17:36, Mark Reynolds wrote: >>> >>> http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html >> >> Looks great! >> >> Instead of "Success" we could use

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-13 Thread Mark Reynolds
On 6/13/19 4:02 AM, William Brown wrote: On 12 Jun 2019, at 17:36, Mark Reynolds wrote: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html Looks great! Instead of "Success" we could use "Healthy" because replication isn't a success/fail, it's a longterm "good/bad" IE

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-13 Thread William Brown
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 17:36, Mark Reynolds wrote: > > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html Looks great! Instead of "Success" we could use "Healthy" because replication isn't a success/fail, it's a longterm "good/bad" IE healthy/failing state. So perhaps

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread Mark Reynolds
On 6/12/19 12:53 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Mark Reynolds wrote: On 6/12/19 11:41 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Mark Reynolds wrote: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? Well there are two type of

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread Rob Crittenden
Mark Reynolds wrote: > > On 6/12/19 11:41 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: >> Mark Reynolds wrote: >>> http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html >> conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? > Well there are two type of errors that can occur.  One is a

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread thierry bordaz
Sorry Mark, my email was confusing. First you make a good point. Giving extra info does not hurt. I just noticed that replication status contains two RC (ldap and replication), while init status contains three RC (ldap, replication, connection). So the json struct should differ from

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread Mark Reynolds
On 6/12/19 12:08 PM, thierry bordaz wrote: Hi Mark, Looking very good to me. For replication status there is either ldaprc or replrc. The message is self explaining if it is a LDAP or replication error. IMHO I think json could only contain 'repl_status' that can contain ldaprc or replrc.

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread thierry bordaz
Hi Mark, Looking very good to me. For replication status there is either ldaprc or replrc. The message is self explaining if it is a LDAP or replication error. IMHO I think json could only contain 'repl_status' that can contain ldaprc or replrc. For init status, it exists ldaprc, connrc and

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread Mark Reynolds
On 6/12/19 11:41 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Mark Reynolds wrote: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? Well there are two type of errors that can occur.  One is a replication error (missing CSN,

[389-devel] Re: please review: Replication Status Message Improvements

2019-06-12 Thread Rob Crittenden
Mark Reynolds wrote: > http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-agmt-status-design.html conn_error is 0 in all the examples. What would this be used for? Otherwise this looks ok to me. I assume we'll need to do coordinate releases with IPA so the new format can be handled properly? I guess