BIND 10 #2095: Define and implement RdataEncoder class
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Mon Jul 30 11:28:36 UTC 2012
#2095: Define and implement RdataEncoder class
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: jinmei
jinmei | Status: reviewing
Type: task | Milestone:
Priority: | Sprint-20120731
medium | Resolution:
Component: data | Sensitive: 0
source | Sub-Project: DNS
Keywords: | Estimated Difficulty: 5
Defect Severity: N/A | Total Hours: 0
Feature Depending on Ticket: |
scalable inmemory |
Add Hours to Ticket: 0 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):
* owner: vorner => jinmei
Comment:
Hello
It doesn't compile for me. I think I saw this somewhere and it is maybe
because you based it on another branch and it should be fixed in master,
but a merge with master has conflicts:
{{{
labelsequence_unittest.cc: In member function ‘virtual void
{anonymous}::LabelSequenceTest_serialize_Test::TestBody()’:
labelsequence_unittest.cc:705:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:715:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:726:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:733:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:740:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc: In member function ‘virtual void
{anonymous}::LabelSequenceTest_badDeserialize_Test::TestBody()’:
labelsequence_unittest.cc:768:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:770:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:774:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:778:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
labelsequence_unittest.cc:784:5: error: duplicate ‘const’
}}}
Some minor comments:
* The exception text „RDATA encoder finds missing field„ looks slightly
strange to me. If it is missing, then it can't be found.
* The code in `updateOtherData` is confusing. I'm not really sure how to
improve that, maybe placing the variable length thing into an else branch
instead of using continue could be an option.
Also, I'd like to see the thing does not go outside the buffer that is
passed to it. Would it be possible to do a test with a canary vale after
the data and see it survived?
Thank you
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2095#comment:12>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list