Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • BIND BIND
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 577
    • Issues 577
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 117
    • Merge requests 117
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Container Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • ISC Open Source ProjectsISC Open Source Projects
  • BINDBIND
  • Issues
  • #331
Closed
Open
Issue created Jun 11, 2018 by Michał Kępień@michalOwner9 of 9 checklist items completed9/9 checklist items

Further refactoring of functions in lib/dns/zoneverify.c

Certain review comments in !291 (merged) were related to code which was not introduced by that MR, but rather just moved around. The following comments should thus be addressed:

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    This block is little bit confusing (triggering warning condition on ISC_R_SUCCESS), is there a reason why not to move the whole block before the break where it really logically belongs?

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    Also this sort of calls for a helper static functions similar to innsec3params().

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    Perhaps use = { 0 }; and remove memset?

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    Use sizeof(set_algorithms) instead of arbitrary number.

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    = { 0 };

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+3 comments)

    goto done; as in previous functions instead of cut&copy code?

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    This seems awfully similar to just calling !chain_equal().

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    This is so fragile.

  • @ondrej started a discussion: (+1 comment)

    Perhaps 255 should be a constant with a descriptive name?

Edited Aug 25, 2021 by Evan Hunt
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking