Hi, <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Andreas Ericsson <<a href="mailto:ae@op5.se">ae@op5.se</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d">Mark Eisenblaetter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Andreas Ericsson <<a href="mailto:ae@op5.se">ae@op5.se</a>> wrote: > </div><div class="Ih2E3d">>> If you could perhaps post your templates for your master and slave and >> one or two objects that use those template, I'm sure I could explain >> how you can accomplish what you want, although I'm quite sure already >> that you'd be off just fine if you left the template-controlled variables >> out of the objects completely and set them to what they should be in the >> templates on master and slave. > > > Should we do this in this thread or in the initial thread? > </div>In this thread please. The other one is too old for me to fully remember. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d"> > >>> I know that the default behavior is the other direction (template -> >>> service, but service directives are last significant). >>> >>> Since Nagios 3.x allows a template addition through the "+" notation my >>> thoughts goes in this direction. >>> What would be if you were allowed to inject a special character to your >>> template to override a service definition (for example). >>> >>> With attached patch I got exactly this behavior. >>> >> I failed to see the point of your patch after having scrolled past >> 4 pages of function-renaming diff data. I *do* know that it doesn't >> even compile with the attached patch. Since it doesn't compile, I'm >> thinking you can't have tested this very well at all, and what you've >> actually got running is something else, which you're not at all sure >> works as per the current spec at all. >> > > Ok i will look at this. And will do more testing befor submitting the new > version. > > one question is it better to patch against the last release or the last cvs > checkout. > I used the last checkout. > </div>Latest checkout pretty much always. <div class="Ih2E3d"> > > >> It doesn't compile because you have renamed >> xodtemplate_clean_additive_string() to xodtemplate_clean_strings() and >> then call it as xodtemplate_clean_string(). That change is just plain >> noise and should never have made it into the diff. If you want me to >> review it, resend with a minimal set of changes so I can see where the >> logic happens without having to wade through page after page of nonsense. > > > there are both funktions in xodtemplate.c and i can't find one wrong > renaming. > </div>"both" is not applicable in this case, as there are 3 function names in use. xodtemplate_clean_additive_string() xodtemplate_clean_strings() xodtemplate_clean_string() It used to be the first, you renamed it to the second and you're calling it as the third.</blockquote><div> ok know i a little confused. I found the funktion xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings were all variables are checked by xodtemplate_clean_additive_string if there ist any + left. For me that are two different funktions. And I tried to renmame xodtemplate_clean_additive_string in xodtemplate_clean_string and xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings in xodtemplate_clean_strings </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d"> > I don't want to produce double code so i used addaptive funktions to provide > the Cleaning in my case. > in line 98 - 99 you can see that i added my char (=) for cleanup in the > xodtemplate_clean_additive_string funktion and added the handling of the > check_command (Host Line 199 service 214) in the > xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings funktions. > > In this case i tought it would be better to rename the funktion because they > are not handling addaptive-only anymore. > > So what the "best" way to do in this case? > 1. Double the xodtemplate_clean_additive_string and > xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings > 2. Use the both funktions an rename them > 3. Use both funktions and don't touch the name > </div>Pick one name and then use that everywhere. You picked one and used another, which doesn't work. It's like declaring a variable named "foo" and then trying to get the value of it by saying "bar". It doesn't work.</blockquote><div> It sound to me that we don't talk about the same funktions i added the xodtemplate_change_string for the new behavior and modified the two funktions xodtemplate_clean_additive_string and xodtemplate_clean_additive_strings that they handle the cleaning for my '=' in the same way they handle the '+'. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Besides, it looked to me as if you were using your function wherever xodtemplate_clean_additive_string() was used earlier, which should mean they're interchangeable whenever there is no '=', correct?</blockquote><div> Yes, my only change were - if(*str!=NULL && *str[0]=='+'){ + if(*str!=NULL && (*str[0]=='+' || *str[0]=='=')){ And the name, of course. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d"> > > >> I'm not saying I'm against the idea, but if you want your patch accepted >> you need to put in at least a little effort. >> >> That's why i start to write the patch but it's my first C++ patch and my > programming skills are not the best. > </div>Well, we all have to start somewhere. Although, for the record, Nagios is written in C, not C++ :P <div><div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div></div>