BIND 10 #2592: Implement additional getLease4() methods in memfile backend

[BIND 10 Development]

#2592: Implement additional getLease4() methods in memfile backend
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            Reporter:  tomek         |                        Owner:  tomek
                Type:  enhancement   |                       Status:
            Priority:  medium        |  reviewing
           Component:  dhcpdb        |                    Milestone:
            Keywords:                |  Sprint-DHCP-20130904
           Sensitive:  0             |                   Resolution:
         Sub-Project:  DHCP          |                 CVSS Scoring:
Estimated Difficulty:  0             |              Defect Severity:  N/A
         Total Hours:  0             |  Feature Depending on Ticket:
                                     |          Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                                     |                    Internal?:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by tomek):

 I did look at the patch included in comment:12. Couple comments:

 1. The change in dhcpsrv_messages.mes:
 {{{
 -% DHCPSRV_MEMFILE_GET_SUBID_CLIENTID obtaining IPv4 lease for subnet ID
 %1 and client ID %2
 +% DHCPSRV_MEMFILE_GET_SUBID_CLIENTID obtaining IPv4 lease for client ID
 %1
 }}}
 is a mistake. It breaks down many unit-tests. If you run configure with
 --enable-logger-checks, logger will detect this, throw and will fail the
 tests.

 Proposed getLease4(clientid, hwaddr) code is useful, but not sufficient.
 If there is a mobile IPv4 client that moves between two subnets and will
 get a lease in each, it will have 2 valid leases in the database. So this
 has to be getLease4(clientid, hwaddr, subnet_id). Such a call should be
 added to memfile_LeaseMgr.

 Keep in mind that the code will not be used for now, as the allocation
 engine and DHCPv4 server interacts with generic LeaseMgr API, so the
 LeaseMgr class will have to be extended eventually. That's a work for a
 separate ticket, though. Let's not bloat this ticket any more.

 It seems that this patch does not include unit-tests changes.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2592#comment:14>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development