On 12/17/2014 01:06 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
On 12/17/2014 07:37 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (17/12/14 19:11), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> On 12/17/2014 06:44 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> You can use different prefix even with make check.
>>
>> Sure, but then it won't be just any "make check" anymore. It will
>> require a
>> special "configure" invocation to work.
>>
>>> "make distcheck" uses it in such way. It doesn't make sense to
>>> reinvent wheel.
>>> The only difference is that make distcheck does not run program. It
>>> just calls
>>> "make install" and "make uninstall" (very simplified
version)
>>>
>>> Here is simplified part of distcheck. We can use similar approach.
>>>
>>> distcheck: dist
>>> GZIP=$(GZIP_ENV) gzip -dc $(distdir).tar.gz | $(am__untar) ;;\
>>> chmod -R a-w $(distdir)
>>> chmod u+w $(distdir)
>>> mkdir $(distdir)/_build $(distdir)/_inst
>>> chmod a-w $(distdir)
>>> test -d $(distdir)/_build || exit 0; \
>>> dc_install_base=`$(am__cd) $(distdir)/_inst && pwd | sed -e
>>> 's,^[^:\\/]:[\\/],/,'` \
>>> && dc_destdir="$${TMPDIR-/tmp}/am-dc-$$$$/" \
>>> && am__cwd=`pwd` \
>>> && $(am__cd) $(distdir)/_build \
>>> && ../configure \
>>> $(AM_DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS) \
>>> $(DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS) \
>>> --srcdir=.. --prefix="$$dc_install_base" \
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> custom prefix in make distcheck
>>> && $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) \
>>
>> Yes, it invokes "configure" and does a separate build.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're suggesting and I wouldn't like to guess.
>> Could you please clarify?
>>
> It would be better to start from beginnig. You just mentioned some
> problems.
> and I just wanted to give a hint not a full plan.
>
> You haven't mentioned your desing(proposal/plan). IMO, there are more
> ways how
> to run cwrap tests. I can see what's your problem but I cannot image
> you plan.
>
> Could you describe (aproximatelly in ten points) what was your plan?
> Then I will try fit idea from previous mail to your design.
I'm not sure I'll be able to find 10 points, but here's what I'm
trying to do.
I'd like to run nss/sssd/LDAP integration tests as part of a regular
"make
check". I.e. not imposing any more restrictions/conditions on the
"make check"
than we have now. Including running under any developer's user
account, not
counting on a specific build tree location or other files/directories
being
present additionally outside the build directory, and not requiring any
special arguments to "make". I.e. just keep the current "make check"
requirements as they are.
To make that work we need the LDAP server to work with arbitrary
configuration
and data locations (in our case under the build tree). OpenLDAP can do
that,
with locations specified at startup time. Not sure about 389-ds.
We also need all sssd components involved in the tests (at least
libnss_sss
and sssd) to be able to work with arbitrary configuration, data and
socket
locations (under the build tree, again). At the moment we can change
these
only at the build time, via "configure" invocation.
We can probably make the "check" target depend on an additional build
with
changed prefix, but it feels too much of a hassle and a slowdown for
the RPM
build. Making "contrib/ci/run" do the special-prefix build instead seems
easier and simpler.
Nick
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
If we do something in the area we should consider the config DB and
config file refactoring we have on our plate anyways.
IMO it would make sense to pass a path to sssd.conf, directory where
configuration snippets would be expected and where the cache DBs are
located to SSSD as startup parameters.
So if they are passed they would overwrite the ones defined in the code.
That would help with some changes we plan to do and also with the CI.
Would that be an option?
--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal
Sr. Engineering Manager IdM portfolio
Red Hat, Inc.