suricata: add warning about missing runmode#14889
Conversation
If a runmode is missing but other params are passed on the commandline, issue a warning. Ticket: OISF#5711 Signed-off-by: Promise Charles <descencybobby@gmail.com>
|
NOTE: This PR may contain new authors. |
|
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline = 29855 |
jufajardini
left a comment
jufajardini
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: I had suggested this approach when the ask was to warn only when there are cmdline args passed and no runmodes specified but looking at it now, this approach seems to be changing core API affecting library users as well so maybe a bad idea. Thoughts?
Considering this is for 9, I think it should be fine. Do we want the solution to be unified across versions?
|
@jasonish any thoughts on the API change? |
Ok. Just don't backport. |
|
sorry didn't realize it was still a draft. Please feel free to give a verdict. |
catenacyber
left a comment
catenacyber
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the work,
CI : ✅
Code : good
Commits segmentation : simple enough
Commit messages : nice
Git ID set : looks fine for me
CLA : not sure 🟡
Doc update : not needed
Redmine ticket : ok
Rustfmt : no rust
Tests : cool
Dependencies added: none
7 participants
Previous PR: #14417
Changes since 14417:
mainLink to ticket: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/5711
SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#2934
Note: I had suggested this approach when the ask was to warn only when there are cmdline args passed and no runmodes specified but looking at it now, this approach seems to be changing core API affecting library users as well so maybe a bad idea. Thoughts?