On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:34:30PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/02/2015 07:44 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (01/10/15 15:41), Michal Židek wrote:
>>On 10/01/2015 03:08 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>On (01/10/15 13:56), Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>On 09/16/2015 03:56 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>>On 09/15/2015 04:03 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>>>>On 09/14/2015 05:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Michal Židek
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>patch for ticket
>>>>>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
>>>>>>>>>is in the attachment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>Michal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From 7c454bc2a737be05068418a5eef7fe9446bb5fa8 Mon
Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>>>>>>>2001
>>>>>>>>>From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?=
<mzidek(a)redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:37:48 +0200
>>>>>>>>>Subject: [PATCH] util: Include disabled domains in
link_forest_roots
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ticket:
>>>>>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
>>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>> src/db/sysdb_subdomains.c | 6 +++---
>>>>>>>>> src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c | 3 +++
>>>>>>>>> src/util/domain_info_utils.c | 21
++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>>>> src/util/util.h | 3 +++
>>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The patch looks good but whenever I see us adding more
and more boolean
>>>>>>>>switches, I wonder if we should just use flags instead?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This:
>>>>>>>> get_next_domain_ex(d, GND_USE_DISABLED |
GND_DESCEND);
>>>>>>>>Reads quite a bit easier to me than:
>>>>>>>> get_next_domain_ex(d, true, false);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also, bonus point are acquired next time we add a new
flag, because not
>>>>>>>>all callers of the function must be converted..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think this is very good point. It will also give us
implicit
>>>>>>>boolean parameter value (if not set, it is automatically
false)
>>>>>>>which improves readability a lot. I wander if it is good to
add
>>>>>>>the _ex function in this case. Would you agree if I changed
the
>>>>>>>original get_next_domain to use flags? I know, it needs to be
changed
>>>>>>>on more places, but I think such small refactoring makes
more
>>>>>>>sence than adding _ex function with flags.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or is this what you were saying? I am not sure because
>>>>>>>you used the _ex function in your example of
"nice"
>>>>>>>usage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If we have a test for different usages of the flag-based
function, then
>>>>>>I guess it would be better than keeping the existing
get_next_domain
>>>>>>function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We can also split master from sssd-1-13 already..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>btw the flag names were completely pulled out of thin air, feel
free to
>>>>>>suggest better ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>I split the refactoring of get_next_domain to separate patch.
>>>>>The second patch is just one liner that switches on the
>>>>>disabled domains in link_forest_roots.
>>>>>
>>>>>Michal
>>>>>
>>>> ____ _ _ __ __ ____
>>>>__/\_| __ )| | | | \/ | _ \__/\__
>>>>\ / _ \| | | | |\/| | |_) \ /
>>>>/_ _\ |_) | |_| | | | | __//_ _\
>>>> \/ |____/ \___/|_| |_|_| \/
>>>>
>>>>(low priority, just keeping the thread alive :) )
>>>Would you mind to write unit tests for get_next_domain?
>>>
>>>LS
>>
>>It does have unit tests.
>>
>Let me rephrase your answer.
>The tests has beed changed.
>
>But new functionality is not test.
>There is a change in test_utils.s
>>- dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list, true);
>>+ dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list, SSS_GND_DESCEND);
>> assert_null(dom);
>>+
>>+ dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list,
>>+ SSS_GND_DESCEND | SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED);
>>+ assert_non_null(dom);
>But assert_non_null cannot be considered as a valid test for new feature.
>
>So would you mind to extend tests for SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED?
>It ould be god to se what happed if SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED is used without
>the flag SSS_GND_DESCEND. Or which domain will be returned in different cases.
>
>You should consider a new unit test as an additional documentation.
>So if new developer will not be sure hot to use it it will be obvious from
>unit test. This is a reason why it might be better to write separate
>test for new feature in separate patch. Because the current patch
>mostly convert old code to the new style 's/true/SSS_GND_DESCEND/'
's/false/0/'
>(In most cases, I prefer unit test to be part of new small features but
>sometimes it's better to write unit test in separate patch.
>
>LS
Ok. I removed the test changes from the first patch and added
enhanced tests in the new patch.
Michal
Can you rebase the patches atop master, please?
I will then review them. But from casual scrolling from the patches, the
changes look OK to me.