#593 INI should rise an error if the same section is a part of the INI file more than once
Closed: Fixed None Opened 13 years ago by dpal.

The INI file

 [section1]
 key1=v1
 key2=v2
 [section2]
 key3=v3
 key4=v4
 [section1]
 key5=v5
 key6=v6

should cause a parser error.


Fields changed

description: The INI file

[section1]
key1=v1
key2=v2
[section2]
key3=v3
key4=v4
[section1]
key5=v5
key6=v6

should cause a parser error. => The INI file
{{{
[section1]
key1=v1
key2=v2
[section2]
key3=v3
key4=v4
[section1]
key5=v5
key6=v6
}}}
should cause a parser error.

Fields changed

description: The INI file

[section1]
key1=v1
key2=v2
[section2]
key3=v3
key4=v4
[section1]
key5=v5
key6=v6

should cause a parser error. => The INI file
{{{
[section1]
key1=v1
key2=v2
[section2]
key3=v3
key4=v4
[section1]
key5=v5
key6=v6
}}}
should cause a parser error.

Fields changed

description: The INI file

[section1]
key1=v1
key2=v2
[section2]
key3=v3
key4=v4
[section1]
key5=v5
key6=v6

should cause a parser error. => The INI file
{{{
[section1]
key1=v1
key2=v2
[section2]
key3=v3
key4=v4
[section1]
key5=v5
key6=v6
}}}
should cause a parser error.

Alternatively we should at least provide an argument that would tell what to do with it but it seems to be a bit of over-engineering. Thoughts?

Alternatively we should at least provide an argument that would tell what to do with it but it seems to be a bit of over-engineering. Thoughts?

Alternatively we should at least provide an argument that would tell what to do with it but it seems to be a bit of over-engineering. Thoughts?

Duplicate session names should probably have an option to fail, merge or replace.

Duplicate session names should probably have an option to fail, merge or replace.

Duplicate session names should probably have an option to fail, merge or replace.

Replying to [comment:3 sgallagh]:

Duplicate session names should probably have an option to fail, merge or replace.

This is fine. It makes sense then to use the same options in the merge call too.
But I suggest the following options:
- Fail
- Merge (try to combine the two following the merge rules for the section - probably default)
- Replace the whole section
- Preserve the first and drop the new one

Replying to [comment:3 sgallagh]:

Duplicate session names should probably have an option to fail, merge or replace.

This is fine. It makes sense then to use the same options in the merge call too.
But I suggest the following options:
- Fail
- Merge (try to combine the two following the merge rules for the section - probably default)
- Replace the whole section
- Preserve the first and drop the new one

Replying to [comment:3 sgallagh]:

Duplicate session names should probably have an option to fail, merge or replace.

This is fine. It makes sense then to use the same options in the merge call too.
But I suggest the following options:
- Fail
- Merge (try to combine the two following the merge rules for the section - probably default)
- Replace the whole section
- Preserve the first and drop the new one

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => Tools 1.0

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => Tools 1.0

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => Tools 1.0

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

This is a part of the merge logic that needs to be released in 1.0.

blockedby: =>
blocking: =>
coverity: =>
feature_milestone: =>
milestone: Tools Backlog => Tools 1.0
patch: => 0

This is a part of the merge logic that needs to be released in 1.0.

blockedby: =>
blocking: =>
coverity: =>
feature_milestone: =>
milestone: Tools Backlog => Tools 1.0
patch: => 0

This is a part of the merge logic that needs to be released in 1.0.

blockedby: =>
blocking: =>
coverity: =>
feature_milestone: =>
milestone: Tools Backlog => Tools 1.0
patch: => 0

Patches have been pushed.

design: =>
design_review: => 0
fedora_test_page: =>
resolution: => fixed
status: new => closed

Patches have been pushed.

design: =>
design_review: => 0
fedora_test_page: =>
resolution: => fixed
status: new => closed

Patches have been pushed.

design: =>
design_review: => 0
fedora_test_page: =>
resolution: => fixed
status: new => closed

Metadata Update from @dpal:
- Issue assigned to dpal
- Issue set to the milestone: Tools 1.0

7 years ago

SSSD is moving from Pagure to Github. This means that new issues and pull requests
will be accepted only in SSSD's github repository.

This issue has been cloned to Github and is available here:
- https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/issues/1635

If you want to receive further updates on the issue, please navigate to the github issue
and click on subscribe button.

Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata