Unbound: Basic LuCI to go with recent Unbound UCI enhancements

[EricLuehrsen]

Compile tested: ar71xx OpenWrt 15.05.1
Run tested: TL-WDR3600
Description: Basic LuCI to go with recent Unbound UCI enhancements
cc: @hansmi @Borromini

[hnyman]

prt.datatype = "and(uinteger,53,min(1024),max(8192))"

I think that you are aiming at (53 or 1024-8192) right?
Did you test this?
I have not tested this myself, but the datatype looks suspicious. Almost as if you would require it to be both 53 and at least 1024 at the same time. That might require more complex datatype (or alternatively, a validation function).

"and(port,max(8192),or(53,min(1024)))" ???

[EricLuehrsen]

Yes sorry ... tested, failed, and the page overall was ugly. I fouled up rotating and squashing commits from my test branch to this pull branch. I actually decided to just let it be "port."

[poranje]

Nice, does the setup integrate the DNS for hosts on the local domain that have been configured with DHCP (like dnsmasq does) ? A setup in which unbound runs alongside of dnsmasq and where the latter is delegated the local domain works well. — Paul

…

Op 4 dec. 2016, om 11:08 heeft Hannu Nyman ***@***.***> het volgende geschreven: @hnyman commented on this pull request. In applications/luci-app-unbound/luasrc/model/cbi/unbound.lua <#864 (review)>: > +end + +--Service Tab + +mcf = s:taboption("service", Flag, "manual_conf", translate("Manual Conf:"), + translate("Skip UCI and use the Unbound raw configuration in /etc/unbound/unbound.conf.")) +mcf.rmempty = false + +eds = s:taboption("service", Value, "edns_size", translate("EDNS Size:"), + translate("Extended DNS packet size limit to manange MTU restrictions.")) +eds.datatype = "and(uinteger,min(512),max(4096))" +eds.rmempty = false + +prt = s:taboption("service", Value, "listen_port", translate("Listening Port:"), + translate("Unbound will listen for queries on this port.")) +prt.datatype = "and(uinteger,53,min(1024),max(8192))" prt.datatype = "and(uinteger,53,min(1024),max(8192))" I think that you are aiming at (53 or 1024-8192) right? Did you test this? I have not tested this myself, but the datatype looks suspicious. Almost as if you would require it to be both 53 and at least 1024 at the same time. That might require more complex datatype (or alternatively, a validation function). "and(port,max(8192),or(53,min(1024)))" ??? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#864 (review)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAmBiThRhJiqojZ5l6vKZGLxn7j5kCoAks5rEpEpgaJpZM4LDg4J>.

[EricLuehrsen]

@poranje - Yes exactly. See README.md in packages/net/unbound.