[Nut-upsuser] Should NUT driver daemons abort on unknown parameters?

[Jim Klimov]

Cheers,

  PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/3258 aims to "fix" NUT
drivers to proceed rather than abort if they encounter unknown parameters
(e.g. ones that were introduced with a newer NUT release being tried with
an older build).

  The argumentation is that the driver program does the same activity if
the unknown argument is ignored as if when it was not specified, so in
effect this is a no-op.

  To me and some other reviewers, those bail-outs let the end user see
their configuration does not make sense (so something they expected to work
in fact does not), so they get to know about this and to align expectations
with reality. Silently passing is thus misleading, I think. Or even loudly
warning, and passing (invisibly in case of embedded systems, containers,
etc. until someone begins to dig why something "misbehaves strangely").

  Apparently there are pros and cons to both, so it is less a technical and
more a social issue.  I guess this is one of those deliberations where "vox
populi" can help decide which approach is the lesser evil.

  What do you think?

Jim Klimov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20260113/2ba3e6d0/attachment.htm>