Closed huayra closed 7 years ago
This is on purpose.
In which cases you would want to update the name of the subroutines but keep the old names in the comments?
The explanation on a comment is made for the 3.x context. If anything we could re-write a 4.x version of the comment right below, so that you have ALL the context.
We met this problem a couple of times when using the script and it was hard to figure out the issue.
I.e. the result would be something like:
# comment on the vcl_fetch subroutine
# varnish3to4 # comment below. See above line for original comment
# comment on the vcl_backend_response subroutine
# varnish3to4 # end of comment change
Or something like it
What if we document it? Either we replace it or we don't, I don't see the point on adding a new comment and keeping the old one tbh.
Documenting it should be enough. PR: https://github.com/fgsch/varnish3to4/pull/8
According to the VCL.BNF definition https://www.varnish-cache.org/trac/wiki/VCL.BNF, VCL has certain ways to add comments:
comment ::= / !(/|/) / // !(\n) $
!(\n)* $
But when trying to convert files from 3 to 4 that include subroutine names (say vcl_fetch) it will blindly be translated within the comment (say into vcl_backend_response) and that should probably be avoided.
Is this something you would consider adding to the script?