Fw: samba-tool command structure

[Dave Craft]

testparm is certainly an old name and concept in samba but as a standalone
program.   The same can be said for a number of other commands
but perhaps we want to be nuanced about testparm and not categorize
it?   I'm not
sure completely why testparm would get special treatment.

Having said that....I dislike diag also.

These commands like ldapcmp, dbcheck, and testparm predominantly fall into
the category of checking some subset of the configuration for
validity.   So here's
some other high level categories to group these commands under

    config -> testparm, dbcheck, ldapcmp

seems really dumb since samba-tool is all about config anyway

    smb -> testparm
    ldap -> dbcheck, ldapcmp

debatable but I'm not super keen on using an smb category to describe testparm

    check - testparm, dbcheck, ldapcmp

probably better but still seems less descriptive because "check" can
have different
meanings for people.   currently my choice though.

     testparm
     diag       - dbcheck, ldapcmp

I guess this would be the default movement / non-movement scheme?

Seems also like dbcheck might should be called ldapcheck.


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 13:39 -0400, Giampaolo Lauria wrote:
>> Hi Jelmer,
>>
>> I am sorry it took so long to get back to you. Please keep in mind that I
>> am a new samba team member, so I feel that your input is very important.
>>
>> Here are my answers to your questions:
>> 1) For the delegation command, I first would like to say that it has been
>> a top-level command even before I started looking at this regrouping work.
>> While I still think it should be a top-level command due to the fact that
>> it has many subcommands, we should have its authors answer your specific
>> question.
>> >From the command, I see:
>> # Copyright Matthieu Patou mat at samba.org 2010
>> # Copyright Stefan Metzmacher metze at samba.org 2011
>> # Copyright Bjoern Baumbach bb at sernet.de 2011
>> Hopefully one of those gentlemen may give us a feedback.
>>
>> 2) In general, I think it is easier to find things that are grouped by
>> category. It would also be nice to have a single object (diag in our case)
>> as a single entry for the administrator to validate different
>> configuration settings.
>>
>> I think testparm belongs to a diag-like command.
>> After looking at the "testparm" code in more details, I noticed that it
>> does nothing more than validating the values for each keyword in the
>> config file. The fact that it allows the user to specify a section or a
>> keyword, is just to simply dump that section or keyword after validating
>> all the keyword values anyway. Unless I am missing something, I am not
>> sure how useful the keyword value(s) dump can be or whether it is a bug in
>> the command.
>> I am not crazy about the diag naming myself but could not come up with
>> anything better for the time being. Please feel free to suggest a better
>> name.
>
> Let's not move anything into diag until we have a consensus on a better
> name.  I would rather not move things around too often, and for example
> testparm is a very old name in Samba and I think samba-tool testparm is
> appropriate for now.
>
> Andrew Bartlett
>
> --
> Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
> Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
>
>



-- 
Regards, Dave Craft
Cut the headlights and put it in neutral.