On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 13:04 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thomas Haller <thaller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 12:38 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > > Thomas Haller <thaller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Florian, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 12:56 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > > > > .../packetpath/dumps/tcp_options.nft | 14 +++++++ > > > > > > > > > > is there a reason not to also generate a .json-nft file? > > > > > > > > Yes, I am not adding more one-line monsters. > > > > > > > > I'll add one once there is a solution in place that has human > > > > readable > > > > json dumps that don't fail validation because of identical but > > > > differently formatted output. > > > > > > > > > > What about the "[PATCH nft 0/2] pretty print .json-nft files" > > > patches? > > > > I'm fine with that. Phil? Pablo? This is re: > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netfilter-devel/patch/20231124124759.3269219-3-thaller@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > What about making it so we NEVER compare json-nft at all? > > Instead, feed the json-nft file to nft, then do a normal list- > ruleset, > then compare that vs. normal .nft file. The .nft and .json-nft files are all fed back into `nft --check -f`. So that is happening too. It will also comparing the raw files (after sanitize+prettify), which is closer to the original thing that is supposed to be tested. That is why it's done. > > This avoids any and all formatting issues and also avoids breakage > when > the json-nft file is formatted differently. > > Eg. postprocessing via json_pp won't match what this patch above > expects. > What issues do you mean? I don't see any. Did you test/review the two patches? Thomas
