Re: Weird bugs

[Jason Kim]

On Thursday 29 September 2005 21:32, Jason Kim wrote:
> I know it's bad form to reply to myself, but after much sleep and coffee I
> feel that I can tackle this in a bit more coherent (and concise) manner...
>
> * There appear to be some email addressing issues with cfexecd's
> mailing function. There was one I sent yesterday about a sscanf function
> which is supposed to grab the domain from a 'MailTo' variable, and one I
> found today where an 'if' statement has the same exact 'then' and 'else'
> clauses. I've attached a patch that I believe corrects the issues.
>
> * The email function can (under some circumstances) use differing 'from'
> addresses, one during the smtp 'MAIL FROM:' section and another in the
> actual message body. Is this intentional? It doesn't seem so, in which case
> the patch I've provided does nothing more than fix a fundamentally broken
> method. In that case I will gladly try to neaten it up some if no one else
> wants to.
>
> * The main part of my previous email was devoted to the matter of
> extraneous runlog files caused by inconsistent handling of
> qualified/unqualified hostnames by cfexecd and cfagent (I'm going to ignore
> cfenvd, it's just not worth it). It appears that cfagent has the most
> robust method of getting it right, provided that there is a 'domain'
> variable defined. I propose patching cfexecd to instead query cfagent for
> the correct names, as its current method of calling GetNameInfo() doesn't
> work consistently in all cases. This could be as simple as adding 'host'
> and 'domain' to the list of values that GetCfStuff() grabs from cfagent and
> doing away with GetNameInfo() altogether. But if the side effects of
> GetNameInfo() (setting various name based classes) are needed (and I didn't
> see any sign that they were), I suppose a simple correction to VFQNAME,
> VUQNAME, and VDOMAIN after every GetNameInfo() would work too.
>
> There, I hope that was better...
> -JayKim
>
Replying to myself again... I'm sorry, I don't want to be annoying, but has 
anyone had a chance (or the desire) to look into these issues? They are 
somewhat minor, but I'm rolling out cfengine company-wide and details do 
count.
Would it be easier if I were to just submit a giant patch that would 'fix' 
things the way I think they should be? I don't want to step on the Mr. 
Burgess' toes, and I'm sure he has much more understanding of the code than I 
do...
-JayKim