Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors
From: Patrick Donnelly <batrick () batbytes com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:12:07 -0400
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? -- - Patrick Donnelly _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrick Donnelly (May 04)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors David Fifield (Jun 07)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrick Donnelly (Jun 08)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Fyodor (Jun 09)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrick Donnelly (Jun 11)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrick Donnelly (Jun 11)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrik Karlsson (Jun 12)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Fyodor (Jun 12)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrick Donnelly (Jun 13)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors Patrick Donnelly (Jun 08)
- Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors David Fifield (Jun 07)