Skip to content

Conversation

@ppcad
Copy link
Collaborator

@ppcad ppcad commented Oct 9, 2025

No description provided.

@ppcad ppcad self-assigned this Oct 9, 2025
@ppcad ppcad marked this pull request as ready for review October 10, 2025 06:18
@ppcad ppcad requested review from kaya-david and kmeinerz and removed request for kmeinerz October 10, 2025 06:18
@kaya-david kaya-david requested a review from kmeinerz October 13, 2025 07:23
@mhoff mhoff requested review from mhoff and removed request for kaya-david and kmeinerz October 17, 2025 10:09
@mhoff
Copy link
Collaborator

mhoff commented Oct 20, 2025

@ppcad Thank you for the PR!

I think it would be more suitable to have a dedicated processor for this kind of functionality, which might/should extend the list_comparison processor. This new processor would then only expect ip addresses or ip address ranges and could then specialize on this functionality.

Advantages:

  • Fine-granular processors
  • No or less try...except flows for happy path scenarios
  • No complex branching logic if further formats are to be supported (e.g. regex, ...)

What do you think?

@ppcad
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ppcad commented Oct 22, 2025

@ppcad Thank you for the PR!

I think it would be more suitable to have a dedicated processor for this kind of functionality, which might/should extend the list_comparison processor. This new processor would then only expect ip addresses or ip address ranges and could then specialize on this functionality.

Advantages:

* Fine-granular processors

* No or less try...except flows for happy path scenarios

* No complex branching logic if further formats are to be supported (e.g. regex, ...)

What do you think?

Yes, it may be better extract this functionality into a dedicated processor. Do you think that the new processor should inherit from list comparison or should it be a separate processor?

@mhoff
Copy link
Collaborator

mhoff commented Oct 24, 2025

I think inheriting from list comparison makes sense!

@ppcad
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ppcad commented Nov 14, 2025

@mhoff could you please take a look now?

Copy link
Collaborator

@mhoff mhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hello @ppcad, many thanks for the proposed changes.

Please have a look at my comments. Typically the comments apply to both, the ng and non-ng, versions. Feel free to reply or reach out if there is anything to discuss!

@ppcad ppcad requested a review from mhoff November 17, 2025 11:00
Copy link
Collaborator

@mhoff mhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Many thanks, I did a second review pass with a few remarks

@ppcad ppcad requested a review from mhoff November 17, 2025 13:10
Copy link
Collaborator

@mhoff mhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Many thanks for the changes. I found one more small bit

@ppcad ppcad requested a review from mhoff November 17, 2025 13:58
Copy link
Collaborator

@mhoff mhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the changes. The compose setup tests can be disregarded for now

@ppcad ppcad merged commit 099cc1d into main Nov 18, 2025
13 of 16 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants