D16299: RFC fallback to dnssd service discovery if smb listDir failed on root

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham added a comment.


  Is this logic correct? Just because we found any entries, we don't use DNSSD? Is there ever a case where we found some entries but might find even more by using DNSSD?
  
  Also, I want to compliment your code. It's so nice and clean and well commented.

INLINE COMMENTS

> kio_smb.h:282
>      bool workaroundEEXIST(const int errNum) const;
> +    void listDNNSD(UDSEntry &udsentry, const QUrl &url, const uint direntCount);
>  

Shouldn't this be `listDNSSD`?

> kio_smb_browse.cpp:459
>  
> +       listDNNSD(udsentry, url, direntCount);
> +

Shouldn't this be `listDNSSD`?

> kio_smb_browse.cpp:504
>  
> +void SMBSlave::listDNNSD(UDSEntry &udsentry, const QUrl &url, const uint direntCount)
> +{

Shouldn't this be `listDNSSD`?

> kio_smb_browse.cpp:508
> +
> +    // This entire method act as fallback logic iff SMB discovery is not working
> +    // (for example when using a protocol version that doesn't have discovery).

iff -> if

REPOSITORY
  R320 KIO Extras

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D16299

To: sitter, #frameworks, #dolphin
Cc: alexde, bcooksley, ngraham, kde-frameworks-devel, kfm-devel, sourabhboss, feverfew, michaelh, spoorun, navarromorales, firef, andrebarros, bruns, emmanuelp, mikesomov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.kde.org/mailman/private/kfm-devel/attachments/20181106/480734fd/attachment.htm>