Hi Dave, Yes, It makes sense to use the same approach at both ends. I have modified the server file to use the same regex approach. Attached is the patch for the same. Please review.
Regards,
Atul
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> There are still validation issues unfortunately; see the attached
> screenshot.
>
> I'm a little bit worried about the validation for the IP being so
> different in Python vs. JS. We should really have both of course (Python
> for defensive purposes, JS for usability), but it's clear they can lead to
> different results. I think we should use the regexp approach in both cases
> (because client-side tests against sockets are a) probably not possible,
> and b) it's the server that matters - e.g. if the client doesn't support
> v6, but the server does). Thoughts?
>
> I've also attached an updated patch in which I tweaked a couple of things,
> including docs. Please work from that.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Friday, June 23, 2017, Atul Sharma <atul.sha...@enterprisedb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Please find updated version attached.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Atul
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm getting:
>>>
>>> (pgadmin4)piranha:pgadmin4 dpage$ git apply
>>> ~/Downloads/RM_2191_ver2.patch
>>> error: cannot apply binary patch to
>>> 'docs/en_US/images/server_advanced.png' without full index line
>>> error: docs/en_US/images/server_advanced.png: patch does not apply
>>>
>>> when trying to apply. If memory serves, this normally happens if you
>>> forget to use --binary when creating the diff.
>>>
>>> Can you send an updated version please?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Atul Sharma
>>> <atul.sha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Please find updated patch.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Atul
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Atul Sharma
>>> >> <atul.sha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Please find attached patch for RM #2191 : Add support for hostaddr
>>> >> > connection parameter
>>> >>
>>> >> Unfortunately there are a few issues with this patch:
>>> >>
>>> >> - It needs rebasing (blame Ashesh :-p )
>>> >>
>>> >> - It's missing the documentation update (and screenshot update)
>>> >>
>>> >> - I'm not sure the validation for a valid IPv6 address in
>>> >> check_for_valid_ipv6 is correct. For example:
>>> >>
>>> >> /^(?:[A-F0-9]{1,4}:){7}[A-F0-9]{1,4}$/.test('::1');
>>> >> false
>>> >> /^(?:[A-F0-9]{1,4}:){7}[A-F0-9]{1,4}$/.test('fe80::187f:316f
>>> :4bb8:8a3d');
>>> >> false
>>> >>
>>> >> Both of those are valid addresses.
>>> >>
>>> >> Note that I've only eye-balled the patch so far, as I was unable to
>>> >> apply it without manual work.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks!
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Dave Page
>>> >> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>> >> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>> >>
>>> >> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave Page
>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
>>> Twitter: @pgsnake
>>>
>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
RM_2191_ver5.patch
Description: Binary data
