[PATCH 2/7] ldb:ldbdel tool - use LDB result constants for consistency

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Simo,

any news on this? I would really like to have these patches merged.

Cheers,
Matthias

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> Simo,
>
> please consider the code part from "main":
>> @@ -116,11 +116,11 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv)
>>               ret = ldb_delete_recursive(ldb, dn,req_ctrls);
>>           } else {
>>               ret = ldb_delete_ctrl(ldb, dn,req_ctrls);
>> -            if (ret == 0) {
>> +            if (ret == LDB_SUCCESS) {
>>                   printf("Deleted 1 record\n");
>>               }
>>           }
>> -        if (ret != 0) {
>> +        if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) {
>>               printf("delete of '%s' failed - (%s) %s\n",
>>                      ldb_dn_get_linearized(dn),
>>                      ldb_strerror(ret),
> "ldb_delete_recursive" previously returned 0 or -1 while 
> "ldb_delete_ctrl" always returned an LDB result. Therefore I thought 
> to adapt both to return a LDB result. But I'm open for discussions to 
> don't return this LDB result code as an exit code, but to convert it 
> somehow.
>
> Cheers,
> Matthias
>
> simo wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 22:45 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>>          ret = ldb_search(ldb, ldb,&res, dn, LDB_SCOPE_SUBTREE, attrs,
>>> "distinguishedName=*");
>>> -       if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) return -1;
>>> +       if (ret != LDB_SUCCESS) return ret;
>>>
>> The return code from ldb_delete_recursive() is returned directly to main
>> and from there to the userspace that called ldbdel
>>
>> This patch would change the return error codes of the ldbdel tool.
>>
>> I am not sure it is a good idea.
>>
>> In general tool do not return LDB_ERR_*/LDB_SUCCESS on purpose, as they
>> return internal utility error codes to be returned to the user space.
>>
>> What do we gain with these patches ?
>>
>> Simo.
>>
>
>