Hi Pablo, On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 08:19:24PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 08:13:41PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:11:39PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > Hi Pablo, > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:00:51PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 06:36:08PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > Parser already allows to quote user-defined strings in some places to > > > > > avoid clashing with defined keywords, but not everywhere. Extend this > > > > > support further and add a test case for it. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Changes since v1: > > > > > - Fix testcase, I forgot to commit adjustments done to it. > > > > > > > > > > Note: This is a reduced variant of "src: Quote user-defined names" sent > > > > > back in January. Discussion was not conclusive regarding whether > > > > > to quote these names on output or not, but I assume allowing for > > > > > users to specify them by adding quotes is a step forward without > > > > > drawbacks. > > > > > > > > So this will fail later on, right? > > > > > > > > nft list ruleset > file.nft > > > > nft -f file.nft > > > > > > Yes, that's right. I sent a complete version which does the necessary > > > quoting on output in January[1], but discussion wasn't conclusive. You > > > had a different approach which accepts the quotes as part of the name > > > but you weren't happy with it, either. I *think* you wanted to search > > > for ways to solve this from within bison but we never got back to it > > > anymore. > > > > > > This simplified patch is merely trying to make things consistent > > > regarding user-defined names. IIRC, I can already have an interface > > > named "month", use that in a netdev family chain declaration (quoted) > > > and 'nft list ruleset' will print it unquoted, so it can't be applied > > > anymore. Without my patch, it is simply impossible to use certain > > > recognized keywords as names for tables, chains, etc., even if one > > > accepted the implications it has. > > > > I'm not arguing there's something to fix. > > > > I'm telling this is still incomplete. > > > > Would you allocate a bit of time to discuss this during the NFWS? > > I mean, a quick summary of the different options for a complete > solution for this, and we decide there. > > Unless you tell me this is very urgent :-) That's a great idea! I'll check my inbox for more of those unfinished topics. :) Thanks, Phil
