Full build information is sent in VE to pingers

[Derek Gal]

As discussed with eMTee im reporting this here. Ideal would be to have ADCHPP just send 2.12.1

log:
[ 14:09:26 ][ <-- ]HSUP ADBASE ADTIGR ADPING

 [ 14:09:26 ][ --> ]ISUP ADBASE ADTIGR ADPING
 [ 14:09:26 ][ --> ]ISID MVYF
 [ 14:09:26 ][ --> ]IINF VE2.12.1\s(r"9cc39b82ab6f\s-\s2016-03-06\s23:00\s+0100")\sRelease HI1 NIADCÂ HUBLIST.ORGÂ SUPPORTÂ HUBÂ - APADCH++ ### e t c ….

[Derek Gal (dchublist.org)]

Its not a big deal but looks nasty in hublist stats.
Much bigger issue is that it disconnects all pingers (if ip is different that that outdated one patched into code a while ago).

[Derek Gal (dchublist.org)]

Neverming - it is fixed now and no pinger ip patch is needed at all.
It was missing BINF that i just added to code. I think it works fine.

[eMTee (realprogger)]

The full version and build info is added to both the DE and VE fields which is I think unnecessary and not much useful. None of the ADC hubs and clients do this. Possible fix attached.

[Derek Gal (dchublist.org)]

ADCH++ sents full build info in client INF as well.
This can be fixed in access.lua so it sends just soft. version instead of f.b info.

Also can uptime be added after soft version instead of full build info? Maybe usercount?

[eMTee (realprogger)]

Having full build info in DE is pretty much OK; that looks to be the correct field for such data. Uptime and usercount, among other data is/should be sent in the respective fields defined by the ADC extension <https://adc.sourceforge.io/ADC-EXT.html#_ping_pinger_extension>
Whether those are fully implemented in ADCH++ or not I'm not sure but if not then it is a topic of another bug report.

[Derek Gal (dchublist.org)]

Yes. It's not pinger related. More like future request.
I meant: show hubs uptime and usercount when new user connects. Something like that:

This hub is running ADCH++ v.2.12.1
Current user count: 26.
Server's uptime: 00:01:05.

As far as ping info soft works perfectly fine with all fields correct as far as I can see.
But I think its very low priority. I see other issues posted here with higher rank so for now im happy with what we have achieved so far. Sorry for this offtop.

[Fredrik Ullner (ullner)]

TL/DR: I suggest a new field is created with a "unique version" tag or dumping the hash/time altogether.

Bit of background: The VE field used to be "everything to identify a client or hub", which typically meant software had like "ABC 1.2.3" but others used "ABC v1-2-3." or some other format which made it impossible to generically distinguish software. Hence the AP field to at least split the application and the version. (Especially since whitespace wasn't unique enough to indicate "now starts the version".)

Regarding ADCH++'s use of the build hash (Mercurial hash) and time of day, is in my opinion not what the VE field was supposed to be. Now, the VE field (much like any other descriptive field) is up to the developer to decide on what to include, so when I say "supposed" I don't mean that the software in question is flat out wrong. I'm just saying "this isn't what we had in mind when we wrote that".

The hash (and time of day) is only relevant when we're talking about non-released versions. The hash of a released version of a software can be looked up, simply in their respective code repository. So the hash is really only useful when you're currently using a version that the developers haven't quite released yet -- basically this version is a development version/branch.

I would suggest a) creating a new field with more uniqueness (hash and time) or b) removing the hash and time because it's not really of interest except in special cases.

[Fredrik Ullner (ullner)]

By the way, it important to distinguish from the information in PING and what a normal user (client) should get. A normal user may not really care about a bunch of things in provided in the INF, such as the user count -- because the client will automatically anyway show that.

[poy (poy)]

the dev build number indeed matters - as is, I can agree with removing it from "final" builds (where the version number has been increased) only.

the separate INF field sounds nicer.