Attention is currently required from: pespin. neels has posted comments on this change by neels. ( https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmocore/+/37881?usp=email ) Change subject: CTRL: get rate_ctr_group by the id from rate_ctr_group_set_name() ...................................................................... Patch Set 3: Code-Review-1 (1 comment) Patchset: PS2: this is a valid point, wondering why it is marked resolved? unmarking. I thought it's good enough and simplest to implement ... but obviously didn't think it through. From the logic we use in rate_ctr.(abs|per_sec|...).hnb.[0-99].barred_foos I thought at first that I have to add an all new level, which i don't want, like this: ..hnb.by-idx.0.barred_foos ..hnb.by-id.901-70-C123.barred_foos i.e. ..hnb.(by-idx|by-id).IDX_OR_NAME.barred_foos because I want to keep the "hnb.0" command unchanged. i.e. not having to add an "by-idx" to all existing CTRL clients. Until now i thought that effort is not worth it -- but just now I notice that we can add only the 'by-id' keyword, because it's clearly distingushable from a plain integer. Allow these variants: rate_ctr.abs.hnb.0.barred_foos rate_ctr.abs.hnb.by-id.901-70-C123-etc.barred_foos what do you guys think is better naming, "by-id" or "by-name"? -- To view, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/c/libosmocore/+/37881?usp=email To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit https://gerrit.osmocom.org/settings?usp=email Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Project: libosmocore Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Change-Id: I841a12f76e6fcb2bd7aecb5f4b1707d9ec927137 Gerrit-Change-Number: 37881 Gerrit-PatchSet: 3 Gerrit-Owner: neels <nhofmeyr(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: Jenkins Builder Gerrit-Reviewer: neels <nhofmeyr(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Reviewer: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-CC: laforge <laforge(a)osmocom.org> Gerrit-Attention: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de> Gerrit-Comment-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 23:45:15 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes Gerrit-Has-Labels: Yes Comment-In-Reply-To: pespin <pespin(a)sysmocom.de>