Skip to content

Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages #6315

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 6, 2024

Conversation

progier389
Copy link
Contributor

@progier389 progier389 commented Sep 2, 2024

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

@progier389
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fixed several issues because the testcase failed on bdb:

  • compute the right li_directory when opening the db
  • prevent race condition and double free with bdb (this cause a leak but it is in a dblayer function only called by dbscan ...
  • change the testcase to export/removeimport replication changelog instead of cn/ Add a limitation that only changelog and id2entry may be imported within dbscan (dbscan cannot open properly the db to support duplicate keys)

Copy link
Contributor

@tbordaz tbordaz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A minor question else LGTM

Copy link
Member

@droideck droideck left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All really minor issues

@progier389 progier389 force-pushed the i5609 branch 3 times, most recently from 50105c2 to 3a48002 Compare September 5, 2024 11:06
@progier389 progier389 added this to the 2.5 milestone Sep 6, 2024
@progier389 progier389 merged commit 25e1d16 into 389ds:main Sep 6, 2024
197 checks passed
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2024
* Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

(cherry picked from commit 25e1d16)
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
* Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

(cherry picked from commit 25e1d16)
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
* Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

(cherry picked from commit 25e1d16)
(cherry picked from commit 4790bfe)
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
* Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

(cherry picked from commit 25e1d16)
(cherry picked from commit 4790bfe)
(cherry picked from commit 2ce6458)
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
* Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

(cherry picked from commit 25e1d16)
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
This reverts commit 2ce6458.

(cherry picked from commit 2a1b04f)
progier389 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2025
* Issue 6090 - Fix dbscan options and man pages

dbscan -d option is dangerously confusing as it removes a database instance while in db_stat it identify the database
(cf issue #5609 ).
This fix implements long options in dbscan, rename -d in --remove, and requires a new --do-it option for action that change the database content.
The fix should also align both the usage and the dbscan man page with the new set of options

Issue: #6090

Reviewed by: @tbordaz, @droideck (Thanks!)

(cherry picked from commit 25e1d16)
@progier389 progier389 deleted the i5609 branch May 20, 2025 13:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants