> Gesendet: Montag, 20. Mai 2019 um 18:03 Uhr
> Von: "Tom Rymes" <trymes(a)rymes.com>
> An: development(a)lists.ipfire.org
> Betreff: Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH] Fix for Bug #12050: Adding fixed leases with one 'add' click
>
> On 05/20/2019 10:21 AM, Bernhard Bitsch wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>> If you plan to change any behaviour of the CGI file, that is a matter open for discussion first and then work should start.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> When is this discussed? I made a suggestion of changes of behaviour; yet:
> >>> - Adding a new fixed lease adds this directly, without having to click a second time.
> >>
> >> That is already the case.
> >
> > That's not true! Adding a new entry must retain the existing entries, what isn't the case ( see postings in forum ).
>
> I must chime in here that clicking the button add a dynamic lease
> shouldn't require a second click, IMHO. Add the dynamic lease as fixed,
> then present the user the option to change things, such as name,
> address, etc. after it has already been added.
>
> >>> - Adding a dynamic lease to the fixed leases should work in two steps: first the data from dynamic leases is copied to the edit fields, user can change and complete the definition and adds this by clicking "add". A check for disjunction of sets of fixed and dynamic leases would be possible.
> >>
> >> If you add it from the DHCP leases list, the static lease is meant to be added right away, but you can still edit it to give it a better name or so. This what currently seems to be broken.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe this the intention of the actual implementation. The misfunction lays in the bug, indeed.
> > But my suggestion goes one step further. It isn't desirable to mix up static and dynamic leases. This is based on the mechanics, how dynamic leases are found by dhcpd ( see man page ). IMHO, the problem with this is not shining up immediately, but some times later ( with no modifications meantime ). A two step process with check if the two sets are disjoint avoids this problem.
>
> [snip]
>
> While I would agree that keeping the dynamic and fixed leases physically
> distinct is a good goal, that is a separate change from the newly
> introduced bug, and should be handled separately. IPFire has allowed the
> user to add fixed leases that overlap with the dynamic address scope for
> as long as I have used the product, and it's not really a high-priority
> issue IMHO, so mixing it up with the fix for the new bug seems like a
> bad idea to me.
>

We can guarantee the disjointness only, if we don't allow a definition which breaks this condition.
My suggestion just should help to come out of this situation.

> Here is the bug I opened on that subject a number of years back:
> https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10629
>
> Tom
>

Therefore I added the Bug # to the subject.
Why can't we fixed this bugs together? They are located just in same code parts.

Bernhard