Re: [NSE] Better Handling for Require Errors

[Patrick Donnelly <batrick () batbytes com>]

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/