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