On 11/21/2014 02:52 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 11/20/2014 07:29 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 11/20/2014 01:31 PM, Pavel BÅezina wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 05:24 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2014 05:45 PM, Pavel BÅezina wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> this patch set is based on Jakub's original code. The goal was to
>>>> reduce
>>>> code duplication among responders - the part that iterates over
>>>> domains
>>>> and performs a cache lookup and data provider communication if
>>>> object is
>>>> staled.
>>>>
>>>> The first three patches are preparation for unit tests to allow
>>>> testing
>>>> with multi domain environment. The forth patch is the new interface.
>>>> The
>>>> fifth patch enables views with this interface - I made it a separate
>>>> commit so the changes can be more easily spotted.
>>>>
>>>> And finally the last patch make IFP to use this new interface. Only
>>>> IFP
>>>> uses it at the moment so we can find potential bugs without hitting
>>>> NSS
>>>> and other responders.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Patch 1:
>>> Ack
>>>
>>> Patch 2:
>>> ACK.
>>> I first thought it may be better not to share id_provider
>>> and params among all domains in create_multidom_test_ctx, but
>>> it will be probably the most common case, so it is ok. If we
>>> later need different paramaters for each domain we can create
>>> function like add_domain_to_test_ctx and call it with domain
>>> specific params. So the API is good as-is for now and can be
>>> expanded easily if needed.
>>
>> Doing it in more general way would require lots of additional time which
>> was not worth it given this is the only multi domain test so far.
>>
>>> Patch 3:
>>> There is some code duplication in test_dom_suite_cleanup
>>> and its multidom variant. IMO it would be better to make
>>> the test_dom_suite_cleanup just wrapper around the
>>
>> I will look into the code duplication again.
>>
>>> multidom version. We could change the function to accept
>>> domain name instead of sysdb file name. This will require
>>> minor changes in places where the function is called
>>> (s/TEST_DOM_SYSDB_FILE/TEST_DOM_NAME or similiar).
>>
>> I wanted to avoid this since that would require to change almost every
>> test. But I can do that.
>
> Yes, I also hesitated a bit when I wrote this request, but it is
> just one line change in every test that uses this function and
> it will help to remove the code duplication I mentioned above.
Done. In a separate patch.
>>
>>>
>>> Patch 4:
>>> In Makefile.am there are some trailing whitespaces on lines
>>> 2096 and 2103 (I replaced them with dots here):
>>>
>>> 2094 responder_cache_req_tests_LDFLAGS = \
>>> 2095 -Wl,-wrap,sss_dp_get_account_send \
>>> 2096 $(NULL)....
>>> 2097 responder_cache_req_tests_LDADD = \
>>> 2098 $(CMOCKA_LIBS) \
>>> 2099 $(SSSD_LIBS) \
>>> 2100 $(SSSD_INTERNAL_LTLIBS) \
>>> 2101 libsss_test_common.la \
>>> 2102 $(NULL)
>>> 2103 ....
>>> 2104 endif # HAVE_CMOCKA
Fixed.
>>>
>>> Is this new interface meant to be used in IFP only?
>>> I guess not. I think it should not be limited to users
>>> and initgroups. It would be good to put TODO or FIXME
>>> label to the header file to remind us to add support
>>> for other objects as well.
>>
>> The plan is to test it in IFP and expand it to other responders in later
>> version to be sure we won't be breaking fundamental functionality. So it
>> will not be limited to users and initgroups in near future. I tried to
>> write is as generic as possible to make future extensions easy and safe.
>
> And you did it well, but my point was that the API looks
> like it is able to work with all kinds of objects already (from
> the names of the functions, nothing indicates that they
> are meant for users and initgroups only). That is why I would
> like the have TODO/FIXME/NOTE label (probably in the header?).
OK.
> It also may not be bad to create a ticket to track this.
I'll create a ticket when these patches get to the master.
>>> In the tests, please use a macro constant for the timeout
>>> values (for example in cache_req_user_by_name_send).
>>>
>>> Otherwise the patch looks good.
>>>
>>> Patch 5:
>>> Ack.
>>>
>>> Patch 6:
>>> Ack.
Hi, sorry for delayed answer. Some nitpicks that caused
warnings for me:
In src/tests/common_dom.c:
44
45 cdb_path = talloc_asprintf(tmp_ctx, "%s/%s", ...
46 if (cdb_path == NULL) {
47 DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "talloc_asprintf failed\n");
>>> here should be 'ret = ENOMEM;'
<<<<<
48 goto done;
49 }
And in the same file:
66 static errno_t
67 mock_confdb_domain(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
68 struct confdb_ctx *cdb,
69 const char *db_path,
70 const char *name,
71 const char *id_provider,
72 struct sss_test_conf_param *params,
73 char **_cdb_path)
74 {
75 TALLOC_CTX *tmp_ctx = NULL;
76 const char *val[2] = {NULL, NULL};
77 char *cdb_path = NULL;
78 char **array = NULL;
79 char *list = NULL;
80 bool exists;
^^^^^^ initialize this to false
81 errno_t ret;
82 int i;
Michal