Re: check hhmm for leave
fine.
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number
> > > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001
> >
> > These are my concerns as well.
> >
> > An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just
> > support +minutes, like we do with shutdown(8). The invocation would
> > then be:
>
> this adds the check to just the clock time case. leave +mm isn't bad, but it's
> a little awkward past 60. leave +180 for three hours? unfortunately that
> clashes with existing usage. but my original concern is primarily with hhmm so
> let's just address that.
>
>
> Index: leave.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/src/usr.bin/leave/leave.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.19
> diff -u -p -r1.19 leave.c
> --- leave.c 10 Feb 2018 00:00:47 - 1.19
> +++ leave.c 22 Jan 2020 04:07:41 -
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
>
> static __dead void usage(void);
> @@ -83,6 +84,9 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> plusnow = 1;
> ++cp;
> }
> +
> + if (!plusnow && strlen(cp) != 4)
> + usage();
>
> for (hours = 0; (c = *cp) && c != '\n'; ++cp) {
> if (!isdigit((unsigned char)c))
Re: check hhmm for leave
Scott Cheloha wrote:
> > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number
> > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001
>
> These are my concerns as well.
>
> An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just
> support +minutes, like we do with shutdown(8). The invocation would
> then be:
this adds the check to just the clock time case. leave +mm isn't bad, but it's
a little awkward past 60. leave +180 for three hours? unfortunately that
clashes with existing usage. but my original concern is primarily with hhmm so
let's just address that.
Index: leave.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/src/usr.bin/leave/leave.c,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -p -r1.19 leave.c
--- leave.c 10 Feb 2018 00:00:47 - 1.19
+++ leave.c 22 Jan 2020 04:07:41 -
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
#include
static __dead void usage(void);
@@ -83,6 +84,9 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
plusnow = 1;
++cp;
}
+
+ if (!plusnow && strlen(cp) != 4)
+ usage();
for (hours = 0; (c = *cp) && c != '\n'; ++cp) {
if (!isdigit((unsigned char)c))
Re: check hhmm for leave
Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented. > > > > People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes". > > > > % leave +1 > > Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602) > > % date > > Tue Jan 21 19:22:32 MST 2020 > > % Just one more minute! > > > > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number > > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001 > > These are my concerns as well. > > An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just > support +minutes, like we do with shutdown(8). The invocation would > then be: > > usage: leave [hhmm | +minutes] > > so you could enforce strict string length requirements in the former > case. > > I think typing `leave +0100` to say "remind me to leave in one hour" > is pretty strange. Typing `leave +60` seems more natural. And typing > `leave +5` is much better than `leave +0005`. I do like the +minutes proposal.
Re: check hhmm for leave
Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented. > > > > People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes". > > > > % leave +1 > > Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602) > > % date > > Tue Jan 21 19:22:32 MST 2020 > > % Just one more minute! > > > > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number > > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001 > > These are my concerns as well. > > An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just > support +minutes, like we do with shutdown(8). The invocation would > then be: > > usage: leave [hhmm | +minutes] > > so you could enforce strict string length requirements in the former > case. > > I think typing `leave +0100` to say "remind me to leave in one hour" > is pretty strange. Typing `leave +60` seems more natural. And typing > `leave +5` is much better than `leave +0005`. Is that 60 minutes or 64 minutes? /duck
Re: check hhmm for leave
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 07:23:43PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented. > > People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes". > > % leave +1 > Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602) > % date > Tue Jan 21 19:22:32 MST 2020 > % Just one more minute! > > 1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number > 2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001 These are my concerns as well. An idea I had a while back was to drop support for +hhmm and just support +minutes, like we do with shutdown(8). The invocation would then be: usage: leave [hhmm | +minutes] so you could enforce strict string length requirements in the former case. I think typing `leave +0100` to say "remind me to leave in one hour" is pretty strange. Typing `leave +60` seems more natural. And typing `leave +5` is much better than `leave +0005`.
Re: check hhmm for leave
I suspect this breaks an usage case which is not documented.
People may be doing leave +1 to mean "1 minutes".
% leave +1
Alarm set for Tue Jan 21 19:23. (pid 55602)
% date
Tue Jan 21 19:22:32 MST 2020
% Just one more minute!
1) it isn't documented that + can take a smaller number
2) it will be hard to train people to use +0001
Ted Unangst wrote:
> In testing leave, I found it accepts "12" and will alarm at 00:12, which is
> probably not desirable. this check thats the specified time has 4 digits so
> that the hour/minute math works properly.
>
>
> Index: leave.c
> ===
> RCS file: /home/cvs/src/usr.bin/leave/leave.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.19
> diff -u -p -r1.19 leave.c
> --- leave.c 10 Feb 2018 00:00:47 - 1.19
> +++ leave.c 22 Jan 2020 02:13:03 -
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> #include
>
> static __dead void usage(void);
> @@ -83,6 +84,9 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> plusnow = 1;
> ++cp;
> }
> +
> + if (strlen(cp) != 4)
> + usage();
>
> for (hours = 0; (c = *cp) && c != '\n'; ++cp) {
> if (!isdigit((unsigned char)c))
>
check hhmm for leave
In testing leave, I found it accepts "12" and will alarm at 00:12, which is
probably not desirable. this check thats the specified time has 4 digits so
that the hour/minute math works properly.
Index: leave.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/src/usr.bin/leave/leave.c,v
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -p -r1.19 leave.c
--- leave.c 10 Feb 2018 00:00:47 - 1.19
+++ leave.c 22 Jan 2020 02:13:03 -
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#include
#include
static __dead void usage(void);
@@ -83,6 +84,9 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
plusnow = 1;
++cp;
}
+
+ if (strlen(cp) != 4)
+ usage();
for (hours = 0; (c = *cp) && c != '\n'; ++cp) {
if (!isdigit((unsigned char)c))
