BIND 10 #1484: python binding for ZoneFinder.findAll
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Tue Dec 20 22:39:17 UTC 2011
#1484: python binding for ZoneFinder.findAll
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: jinmei
jinmei | Status: reviewing
Type: task | Milestone:
Priority: minor | Sprint-20120110
Component: data | Resolution:
source | Sensitive: 0
Keywords: | Sub-Project: DNS
Defect Severity: N/A | Estimated Difficulty: 3
Feature Depending on Ticket: DDNS | Total Hours: 0
Add Hours to Ticket: 0 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jinmei):
I made a few small cleanups. Some are not related to the changes in
this branch, but since this branch is quite small I thought it made
sense to piggyback these cleanups on this branch.
'''xfrin.py.in'''
- not a problem of this branch, but the call to find() could be even
simpler:
{{{#!python
result, soa_rrset = finder.find(self._zone_name, RRType.SOA())
}}}
Same for xfrout.
'''finder_inc.cc'''
- This part should be removed, too:
{{{
Note: This behavior is controversial as we discussed in\n\
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/2011-January/001918.html We\n\
should revisit the interface before we heavily rely on it.\n\
\n\
}}}
Hmm, we should also remove the corresponding C++ doxygen doc:
{{{#!c++
/// \note This behavior is controversial as we discussed in
///
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/2011-January/001918.html
/// We should revisit the interface before we heavily rely on it.
///
}}}
- ZoneFinder_helper_all: what's this?
{{{#!c++
return Py_BuildValue("I", 1);
}}}
This seems to be unreachable code (and more minor, it would need
parentheses for the return value per coding guideline). This is
probably a mere copy of ZoneFinder_helper, and the same comment
applies to it.
'''datasrc_test.py'''
- as for the failure, I found it failed when I did 'make check' after
'make clean'. not looking into it further, but I guess there's some
initialization issue. This also suggests it would be better to
confirm it passes distcheck if you didn't do it yourself.
- it may be better to use rrset_utils.rrsets_equal() to compare
RRsets (it performs more details checks)
- I'd check if optional parameters can be actually omittable.
- if possible, I'd also test if the returned list and its elements
would be cleaned up when they are not used (i.e., they don't have
extra reference counts).
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1484#comment:11>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list