Hi,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:35:05AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:38:33PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:58:53PM +0100, Jeremy Sowden wrote:
> > > > `terse` and `numeric_time` are missing from the `output_flags` dict.
> > > > Add them and getters and setters for them.
> > >
> > > LGTM.
> > >
> > > @Phil, is this fine with you? I let you decide on this.
> >
> > I just pushed it. Could you please update Patchwork? I'm not allowed to.
> >
> > > BTW, would it make sense at some point to remove all the getter/setter
> > > per option and use the setter/getter flags approach as in libnftables?
> >
> > Well, from a compat standpoint we can't remove them. The benefit of
> > those setter/getter methods is the clean interface (user's don't have to
> > memorize flag names) and the semantics of returning the old value. The
> > latter comes in handy when changing flags temporarily.
>
> Probably some transitioning? ie. add the generic set/get flag
> interface. Update clients of this (Eric's code) to use. Leave the old
> interfaces for a while there to make sure people have time to migrate.
> Then remove them.
Sounds good!
> Anyway, I'm fine if you prefer this more verbose interface for python,
> no issue.
Main goal was to keep the bit-fiddling away from users, but a method
which accepts an array of flag names (or flag values) and does the
binary OR'ing should serve fine, too.
> > One could change the private __{g,s}et_output_flag() methods though and
> > make them similar to {g,s}et_debug() methods which probably resemble the
> > syntax you're looking for.
>
> Hm, not sure what you mean.
I was referring to get_debug() and set_debug() methods of class
Nftables. The getter returns an array of debug flag names, the setter
accepts either a single flag name/value or an array of those.
Cheers, Phil
