-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
Report zonefile parsing & signing progress to the caller. #448
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
base: initial-nsec3-generation
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
99e0d40 to
2a8816f
Compare
… output format. (#463)
|
@ximon18 this has some conflicts. Do we need to keep this around? |
|
This parser is currently used by Cascade so assuming these changes are part of the patches-for-nameshed-prototype branch then they benefit Cascade users. Anyone using this "old" parser benefits from these changes so yes, however, we were planning to switch to the new-xxx parser which would replace this parser. |
|
@ximon18, would you then mind fixing the conflicts and, if you feel the PR is ready for review, remove the draft status? |
This allows callers to report progress, which is especially useful on very large zone files.
For example usage see NLnetLabs/dnst#35.
I'm not very happy with the
inplace::Zonefileprogress support, but due to the replacement of self via the Bytessplit()operation, reset of thestartvariable and the iterator being mutably consumed by the caller, using a new position tracking variable and returning it viaEntryseemed like one easy way of getting the progress information out to the iterating caller code.Perhaps something like
Iterator::enumerate()could be used instead to return the progress offset to the iteration loop?If we keep the extra var returned with
Entryit should probably be made into named struct fields instead of anonymous tuple fields, to be more self-evident what theusizevalue is. Also, the extra tuple field infects all call sites which is annoying as most don't care about it.Note: This PR lacks progress notification for NSEC hashing, that should also be added.
Thoughts:
Option.