Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:14:39 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New -list function added to bleeding. -list=format-methods On 07/02/2012 07:31 PM, jfoug wrote: > The syntax is --list=format-methds[=WHICH] s/methds/methods/ But the patch itself is correct. If one can use --list=... and --list:... (as with other options, shouldn't we also allow --list:format-methods:WHICH or --list=format-methods:WHICH And may be mention --list=format-methods[:WHICH] in the documentation? For --list=format-methods, the bash completion will work without problems, but it will add a trailing space after format-methods. So I'll need to update the bash completion script in that case. (I'll take care of that once the "final" implementation for --list=format-methods is ready.) If you would change "format-methods, " in the --list=? output to "format-methods[:WHICH], ", then I could implement something more general which will even work for future additions with an (optional or) obligatory :VALUE, so that a trailing space will not be added by the bash completion if there is an optional value. (If an obligatory value is required, the completion could even add the ':' or '=', otherwise I'll use logic similar to the current one for --options with an optional value.) Currently, the list of methods (possible values for WHICH) is hard coded. I could either hard code the same list in john.bash_completion, or we would need another --list=method-names (or similar) option which I could use to provide bash completion. (If that new option doesn't exist, then I can fall back to the hard coded list. But if the list of method names varies in future releases, an hard coded list for the latest release would provide completions which are not supported by older releases. If someone specifies --list=format-methods:invalid_name, I'd prefer an exit(1). BTW, I also have a patch ready to make the --list= more user friendly (e.g., for --list=help or --list=whatever, I print the same list as with --list=?, as long as no such section name is defined in the config file), but that will conflict with your change. Fortunately, my patch is against magnum-jumbo, so I'll let magnum fix the merge conflict. (I would have sent the patch a few days ago, but he insists on a pull request;) > One other 'feature', is the code will also print if any of the get_hash or > binary_hash function pointers are null. The format self test code fails > for any format for any of the other pointers IF they are null, so I did not > replicate that code here. What if a format doesn't have any self tests? (I guess the format will not work anyway, and that's why such a format will probably not be part of a released jumbo version.) Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.