BIND 10 #526: CNAME query processing for b10-auth with in memory data source

[BIND 10 Development]

#526: CNAME query processing for b10-auth with in memory data source
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  jinmei   |                Owner:  UnAssigned
                     Type:  task     |               Status:  reviewing
                 Priority:  major    |            Milestone:  A-Team-
                Component:           |  Sprint-20110209
  b10-auth                           |           Resolution:
                 Keywords:           |            Sensitive:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  3.0      |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                Billable?:  1        |          Total Hours:  0
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:6 vorner]:
 > It is ready for review.
 >
 > I do no chaining at all now and leave it for later. The RFC 1024
 slightly indicates we should do it at last inside the same zone (there's a
 description of algorithm that suggest that), but let's leave it out for
 another task. Should I create it and put it to backlog or somewhere?

 The change to query.cc looks okay for now with one minor nit: is the blank
 comment line intentional?
 {{{
                  * forbidden anyway).
                  *
                  */
 }}}

 I'd add some more tests:
  - explicit type CNAME query
  - case when CNAME target doesn't exist in the same zone, i.e. CNAME
 target
    is nxdomain.example.com
  - case when CNAME chasing would result in NXRRSET
  - case when CNAME target is out of zone

 The expected results of these tests would be trivial with the initial
 implementation, but these tests would help reveal possible regression
 in future.

 For the out of zone case, I'd also add an extension to the mock data
 source: supporting multiple zones, and test the case the server has
 authority for the out-of-zone target.  But that would be a separate
 (small)
 task per se.

 although it shouldn't change anything for the    initial implementation

 > Should I create it and put it to backlog or somewhere?

 Yes, please.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/526#comment:7>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development