[bisq-network/bisq] Torrc (#1893)

[Manfred Karrer]

ManfredKarrer approved this pull request.

utACK

> @@ -330,6 +333,14 @@ protected void customizeOptionParsing(OptionParser parser) {
         parser.accepts(NetworkOptionKeys.SOCKS_5_PROXY_HTTP_ADDRESS,
                 description("A proxy address to be used for Http requests (should be non-Tor). [host:port]", ""))
                 .withRequiredArg();
+        parser.accepts(NetworkOptionKeys.TORRC_FILE,
+                description("An existing torrc-file to be sourced for Tor. Note that torrc-entries, which are critical to Bisqs flawless operation, cannot be overwritten.", ""))
+                .withRequiredArg();
+//                .withValuesConvertedBy(new PathConverter(PathProperties.FILE_EXISTING, PathProperties.READABLE));
+        parser.accepts(NetworkOptionKeys.TORRC_OPTIONS,
+                description("A list of torrc-entries to amend to Bisqs torrc. Note that torrc-entries, which are critical to Bisqs flawless operation, cannot be overwritten. [torrc options line, torrc option, ...]", ""))
+                .withRequiredArg();
+//                .withValuesConvertedBy(RegexMatcher.regex("^([^\\s,]+\\s[^,]+,?\\s*)+$"));

I am not very experienced with the option parsing part and also don't have strong opinions there. Most options are used anyway only by devs so far, but of course that torrc option might be more used by users. I leave it to you what you think makes most sense and causes least effort.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/1893#pullrequestreview-173060051
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20181108/73314adb/attachment.html>