On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:50:54PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> > Well, sometimes when you're debugging a configuration, it's nice to be
> > able to disable some elements. Same for those manipulating/building
> > configs by assembling elements and iteratively pass them through
> > "haproxy -c". That's exactly the reason why we relaxed a few checks in
> > the past, like accepting a frontend with no bind line or accepting a
> > backend with a "cookie" directive with no cookie on server lines. In
> > fact we could simply emit a warning when a resolvers section has no
> > resolver nor resolv.conf enabled, but at least accept to start.
>
> Understood; however in this specific case I would argue one would
> remove the "resolver" directive from the server-line(s), instead of
> dropping the nameservers from the global nameserver declaration.
No, because in order to do this, you also have to remove all references
on all "server" lines, which is quite a pain, and error-prone when you
want to reactivate them.
> Maybe a config warning would be a compromise for this case?
Yes, that's what I mentionned above, I'm all in favor of this given that
we can't objectively find a valid use case for an empty resolvers section
in production.
Cheers,
Willy
> > Well, sometimes when you're debugging a configuration, it's nice to be
> > able to disable some elements. Same for those manipulating/building
> > configs by assembling elements and iteratively pass them through
> > "haproxy -c". That's exactly the reason why we relaxed a few checks in
> > the past, like accepting a frontend with no bind line or accepting a
> > backend with a "cookie" directive with no cookie on server lines. In
> > fact we could simply emit a warning when a resolvers section has no
> > resolver nor resolv.conf enabled, but at least accept to start.
>
> Understood; however in this specific case I would argue one would
> remove the "resolver" directive from the server-line(s), instead of
> dropping the nameservers from the global nameserver declaration.
No, because in order to do this, you also have to remove all references
on all "server" lines, which is quite a pain, and error-prone when you
want to reactivate them.
> Maybe a config warning would be a compromise for this case?
Yes, that's what I mentionned above, I'm all in favor of this given that
we can't objectively find a valid use case for an empty resolvers section
in production.
Cheers,
Willy