[Nut-upsdev] Discussion about legalizing some `ups.status` tokens

[Jim Klimov]

Hello all,

  I've raised an issue https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/2708
to discuss a subject that I'll just summarise below:

The "Status data" section in docs/new-drivers.txt defines certain keywords
that are "Possible values for status_set", stressing that "Anything else
will not be recognized by the usual clients. Coordinate with the nut-upsdev
list before creating something new, since there will be duplication and
ugliness otherwise."

In fact we do have a number of other values in code (example in GitHub
issue).

Gotta decide what to do with the currently unknown names - can rename some
cases, but what about others? Legalise them into the docs chapter, and add
handling in C++ bindings, augeas, clients, etc.?

Perhaps more importantly: would such legalisation of keywords acceptable in
ups.status constitute a bump of NUT protocol/API for formal versioning
(e.g. that clients conforming to protocol N are expected to handle tokens
X,Y,Z)?

Note this concerns not only "rogue" names used by some one driver, but also
"ALARM" and "ECO" that were elaborately added across most of the practical
codebase in recent (post NUT v2.8.2) development.

Thanks in advance for feedback,
Jim Klimov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20241203/5e79f59b/attachment.htm>