Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 06/41] remote: stop trying to print help as giant blocks of text
On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 17:02 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
[...]
+ struct virOptionHelp {
+ const char *opts;
+ const char *help;
+ } opthelp[] = {
+ { "-h | --help", N_("Display program help") },
+ { "-v | --verbose", N_("Verbose messages") },
+ { "-d | --daemon", N_("Run as a daemon & write PID
file") },
+ { "-l | --listen", N_("Listen for TCP/IP connections") },
+ { "-t | --timeout <secs>", N_("Exit after timeout
period") },
+ { "-f | --config <file>", N_("Configuration file") },
+ { "-V | --version", N_("Display version information") },
+ { "-p | --pid-file <file>", N_("Change name of PID
file") },
+ };
The way you declare the struct at the same time as you use it for a
local variable is highly unusual in our codebase, especially
considering that you do the former inside a function which is, at
least as far as I'm aware, basically unprecedented in libvirt.
Can you please move the struct declaration outside of the function?
[...]
+ fprintf(stderr, " %s:\n", _("TLS"));
+ fprintf(stderr, " %s: %s\n",
+ _("CA certificate"),
+ privileged ? LIBVIRT_CACERT : "$HOME/.pki/libvirt/cacert.pem");
+ fprintf(stderr, " %s: %s\n",
+ _("Server certificate"),
+ privileged ? LIBVIRT_SERVERCERT :
"$HOME/.pki/libvirt/servercert.pem");
+ fprintf(stderr, " %s: %s\n",
+ _("Server private key"),
+ privileged ? LIBVIRT_SERVERKEY :
"$HOME/.pki/libvirt/serverkey.pem");
+ fprintf(stderr, "\n");
I think the above would work better if you used
" %-18s %s\n"
as the format string, which would result in
TLS:
CA certificate $HOME/.pki/libvirt/cacert.pem
Server certificate $HOME/.pki/libvirt/servercert.pem
Server private key $HOME/.pki/libvirt/serverkey.pem
instead of
TLS:
CA certificate: $HOME/.pki/libvirt/cacert.pem
Server certificate: $HOME/.pki/libvirt/servercert.pem
Server private key: $HOME/.pki/libvirt/serverkey.pem
as the output. Not a big deal either way, but since we're going out
of our way to align options and their descriptions above it makes
sense to me that we'd do the same here as well.
After this patch, the code looks much less readable, but I understand
why you want to do this and you also get rid of some duplication when
it comes to the system/session daemons, so I'm overall okay with the
change.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization