Hi
Awesome - that works nicely. Patch committed.
Congratulations on your first feature!
Regards, Dave.
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Atul Sharma
<atul.sha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
