[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH][RFC] 7 automember rebuild nowait feature added

[Misnyovszki Adam]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:19:51 +0100
Misnyovszki Adam <amisnyov at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 13:26:15 -0400
> Rob Crittenden <rcritten at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Misnyovszki Adam wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > automember-rebuild uses asynchronous 389 task, and returned
> > > success even if the task didn't run. This patch fixes this issue
> > > adding a --nowait parameter to 'ipa automember-rebuild',
> > > defaulting to False, thus when the script runs without it, it
> > > waits for the 'nstaskexitcode' attribute, which means the task
> > > has finished, according to
> > > http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Task_Invocation_Via_LDAP#Implementation.
> > > Old usage can be enabled using --nowait.
> > >
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4239
> > >
> > > Request for comments:
> > > - Should I add a parameter to specify the polling time? (now 1ms)
> > > - Should I add a parameter to specify the maximum polling number?
> > > Now if something fails about creating the task, it polls forever.
> > > - Obviously, if these parameters should be added, there should be
> > > a reasonable default for them (~ Required=False, Default=X).
> > 
> > I don't think you need a polling time, esp since this is hidden from
> > the user, but I think that is probably too short and you may end up 
> > hammering the LDAP server.
> > 
> > I also wonder if there should be some maximum wait time. I don't
> > like loops that can never exit. I'm at a loss for what that time
> > should be though. And we'd need to spell out that we gave up
> > waiting, not that the task necessarily failed. So rather than
> > having a polling time option, rename nowait into wait_for=20, so
> > wait for 20 seconds. Or something like that.
> > 
> > I'd suggest using get_entry since you already know the full DN and
> > there is only ever one. It would make this much more readable.
> > 
> > I wonder if some top-level documentation should be added to flesh
> > this out some more. This does, for example, return False in one
> > case. The meaning for that should be spelled out.
> > 
> > rob
> 
> Hi,
> personally I would keep --no-wait, with a delay of 1 seconds, and a
> maximum waiting time for 60 seconds. Questions is, do we need to
> parameterize with other parameters(wait-for to the maximum time,
> and/or poll-delay for the delay time, both not required), or it is
> not a case which worth to develop?
> Greets
> Adam

Hi,
here are the corrections Petr asked, also the other patch conatins the
plugin registration refactor.
Thanks
Adam

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-devel mailing list
> Freeipa-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-amisnyov-0007-2-automember-rebuild-nowait-feature-added.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20140320/4c126e0f/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-amisnyov-0008-plugin-registration-refactoring-for-automembership.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4994 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20140320/4c126e0f/attachment-0001.bin>