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