2014-08-18 18:34 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering <[email protected]>: > On Sat, 16.08.14 14:24, Ronny Chevalier ([email protected]) wrote: > >> To follow the same behavior that src/core/condition.c do >> --- >> src/shared/condition-util.c | 2 +- >> src/test/test-condition-util.c | 4 ++++ >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/shared/condition-util.c b/src/shared/condition-util.c >> index ff4a8ec..f21786f 100644 >> --- a/src/shared/condition-util.c >> +++ b/src/shared/condition-util.c >> @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ bool condition_test_ac_power(Condition *c) { >> >> r = parse_boolean(c->parameter); >> if (r < 0) >> - return !c->negate; >> + return c->negate; > > Idon't agree that this would be a good idea. I am pretty sure that if we > cannot make sense of the ac power condition we should return positive by > default, not negative. > > That's a bit different form the other conditions, but this is simply > because if don't know let's say a virtualization it's probably a good > idea to assume that we are not running on it. However, if we can't make > sense of an AC state, we should probably assume that we have AC power > and hence say "true"... > > Does that make sense? Both make sense for me, there is no good thing to assume for this, but I just thought that the same behaviour should be followed and document about it maybe.
By the way, there is a couple of places, like this one, where we should add a warning when we could not parse the boolean, I think. > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
