@ESR
In the units project I discovered that the string formatting for
refclocks is handled in a completely different manner from the rest of
the code. Specifically ntpq/mon call ntp.ntpc.statustoa which is a C
library, instead of calling hypothetical formatting functions in
pylib/util.py like they do for everything else.
As far as I can tell from a cursory examination of the code the reason
for this is so it can use the same bitmask #defines as the rest of the
system. Is this correct? If so does that need to remain the case, if not
then why is the complexity of a language bridge being maintained? If it
has to stay this way the unit formatters *can* munch on the output of
statustoa.
Related @anyone: is there a way to make ntpd produce a fake refclock for
testing purposes? I don't have the hardware for it to produce one
naturally, and unit testing / careful examination of the logic can only
go so far. Pushing the testing burden onto someone else's patience is
suboptimal as well.
--
In the end; what separates a Man, from a Slave? Money? Power?
No. A Man Chooses, a Slave Obeys. -- Andrew Ryan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
