INI should rise an error if the same section is a part of the INI file more than once

[sssd-bot]

Cloned from Pagure issue: https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/593

• Created at 2010-07-30 00:40:16 by dpal
• Closed as Fixed
• Assigned to dpal

---

The INI file

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

should cause a parser error.

Comments

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 00:41:15

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.

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 00:41:15

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.

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 00:41:15

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.

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 00:42:50

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?

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 00:42:50

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?

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 00:42:50

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?

---

Comment from sgallagh at 2010-07-30 16:39:46

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

---

Comment from sgallagh at 2010-07-30 16:39:46

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

---

Comment from sgallagh at 2010-07-30 16:39:46

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 16:49:45

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 16:49:45

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 16:49:45

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 19:43:02

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => Tools 1.0

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 19:43:02

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => Tools 1.0

---

Comment from dpal at 2010-07-30 19:43:02

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => Tools 1.0

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-01-19 03:25:55

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-01-19 03:25:55

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-01-19 03:25:55

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-09-26 21:39:55

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-09-26 21:39:55

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-09-26 21:39:55

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-12-18 04:13:39

Patches have been pushed.

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-12-18 04:13:39

Patches have been pushed.

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2012-12-18 04:13:39

Patches have been pushed.

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

---

Comment from dpal at 2017-02-24 14:30:35

Metadata Update from @dpal:

• Issue assigned to dpal
• Issue set to the milestone: Tools 1.0