Home page logo
/

nmap-dev logo Nmap Development mailing list archives

Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors
From: Patrik Karlsson <patrik () cqure net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:41:23 +0200


On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Patrick Donnelly <batrick () batbytes com> wrote:
As I see it we can do one of three things:

(a) Go back to the old system.
(b) Always print an error message.
(c) Accept that require may be silenced for some border cases where we
don't want it silenced. Script authors should be testing with -d...

I'm partial to (c). I don't really like (a). I think (b) defeats the
entire point.

I'm open to suggestions...

I just thought of another possibility. Since we added the
stdnse.require function which is just the original function. Maybe
instead we can keep require the same and add a stdnse.silent_require
(so reverse them). Then people would use:

stdnse.silent_require "openssl"

I think that might be the best approach. What do you all think?

I think this sounds like the best solution to.
This way we can still detect my typos while avoiding the nasty pcall and if-statement stuff.


-- 
- Patrick Donnelly
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


//Patrik
--
Patrik Karlsson
http://www.cqure.net
http://www.twitter.com/nevdull77

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]