Skip to content
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

bitfield parameter behavior appears inconsistent #4075

Open
nigoroll opened this issue Mar 7, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

bitfield parameter behavior appears inconsistent #4075

nigoroll opened this issue Mar 7, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@nigoroll
Copy link
Member

nigoroll commented Mar 7, 2024

Expected Behavior

Using none and all should work consistently, or a good reason why not should be apparent.

Current Behavior

Using none works for feature, but not for vsl_mask. Conversely, all works for vsl_mask, but not for feature.

(cli)

varnish> param.set feature none
200        

varnish> param.set vsl_mask none
106        
Missing '+' or '-' (none)

(attempting to set param 'vsl_mask' to 'none')
varnish> param.set vsl_mask all
200        

varnish> param.set feature all
106        
Missing '+' or '-' (all)

(attempting to set param 'feature' to 'all')

Possible Solution

No response

Steps to Reproduce (for bugs)

No response

Context

Noticed while reviewing release docs

Varnish Cache version

No response

Operating system

No response

Source of binary packages used (if any)

No response

@dridi
Copy link
Member

dridi commented Mar 7, 2024

That's a problem created by the nature of bits parameters. Are they additive by default? They support "none" and otherwise "all".

@nigoroll
Copy link
Member Author

nigoroll commented Mar 7, 2024

But is that not just the way we print the value? If yes, why would it impact the availability of "none" and "all" for param.set?

@nigoroll
Copy link
Member Author

bugwash @dridi said he might want to send a PR

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants