On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 11:30 +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 10:12 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2011, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 21:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> > >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > I worked a bit this morning on this bug. The editor was made in a way
> > >> > that invalid configuration lines are not displayed which is wrong
> > >> > because you can't fix a line if you stored it wrong once.
> > >> >
> > >> > So I did the change to allow the change of an invalid configuration
> > >> > line, and that works well.
> > >> >
> > >> > But I now have many other lines that aren't supposed to appear:
> > >> >
> > >> > # local DATABASE USER METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > >> > # host DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > >> > # hostssl DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > >> > # hostnossl DATABASE USER ADDRESS METHOD [OPTIONS]
> > >> > # host name, or it is
> > >> >
> > >> > All are considered comments, and all have a valid first column, so all
> > >> > are displayed. Which is a bit disturbing because they are part of the
> > >> > comments in pg_hba.conf, they are not supposed to be "actual" lines.
> > >> >
> > >> > So, they match our process of identifiying lines, and so they are
> > >> > displayed. Do you have any idea how we could not display these? I mean,
> > >> > I can simply add a check on the line string to see if they are equal to
> > >> > the one of the five strings above, but it seems quite a ugly hack.
> > >>
> > >> Why don't we just ignore anything that starts with a # ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Because we need to guess which comment is an actual comment and which
> > > comment is a disabled configuration. That allows us to hide actual
> > > comments, and show disabled configuration. Problem is that our guess is
> > > wrong sometimes.
> >
> > Sounds like you're trying to be too clever.
>
> I'm not. That's what the code already does since quite a long time.
> Problem is it doesn't show lines that are enabled and invalid. And if I
> try to show invalid lines, it shows even ones I don't want.
>
> Hmmm, thinking now that I could show invalid but enabled lines, and not
> invalid and disabled lines.
>
I've commited this one. Seems to work fine.
--
Guillaume
http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
http://www.dalibo.com
