Without looking too deeply, it's hard to say, but yes, quite possibly!
I'm interested both in replacing the rather overgrown hand-parsing of the config file with equivalent but simpler functionality. In so doing, if things can become more flexible (e.g., variables, more subsection nesting), that would be even better.
The configuration parser is quite well-tested by installchecks, so I'd be pretty confident that a config parser rewrite that still passes tests is correct.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Originally posted by: djmitche
Without looking too deeply, it's hard to say, but yes, quite possibly!
I'm interested both in replacing the rather overgrown hand-parsing of the config file with equivalent but simpler functionality. In so doing, if things can become more flexible (e.g., variables, more subsection nesting), that would be even better.
The configuration parser is quite well-tested by installchecks, so I'd be pretty confident that a config parser rewrite that still passes tests is correct.
Originally posted by: chassell
this needs an abstraction, either way.... but the installcheck needs to be run more often before that.