On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 03:24:44PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 18:25 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 05:28:18PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>> Hi Jakub,
>>>
>>> thanks for review. I have just a few little remarks, please see inline.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 15:23 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:14:49PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 21:01 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:15:53AM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First patch improves domain detection taking matched length
into account
>>>>>>> as proposed and elaborated by Jakub.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second patch is a simple unit test testing
sss_ldap_dn_in_search_bases
>>>>>>> and sdap_domain_get_by_dn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pavel Reichl
>>>>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't really read the full patches yet, just scrolled
through them,
>>>>>> so I have only one comment so far:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +++ b/src/tests/cmocka/test_search_bases.c
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + SSSD
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + find_uid - Utilities tests
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + Authors:
>>>>>>> + Abhishek Singh
<abhishekkumarsingh.cse(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + Copyright (C) 2013 Red Hat
>>>>>> You should credit yourself :-)
>>>>> Hi Jakub,
>>>>>
>>>>> you are right, thanks for noticing.
>>>> Hi, in general the patches are working well and looking good. I only
have
>>>> a couple of comments, see inline.
>>>>
>>>>> From c7632a2310442cfc10708c5728bd63e6a8c916d2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
2001
>>>>> From: Pavel Reichl <pavel.reichl(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:34:51 +0000
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] SSSD: Improved domain detection
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit more elegant way of detection of what domain the group member
belongs to
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolves:
>>>>>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2132
>>>> I only have code style comments about this patch.
>>>>
>>>>> + tmp_ctx = talloc_new(NULL);
>>>>> + if (tmp_ctx == NULL)
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> We use brackets around single-line conditionals as well.
>>> OK, I have no trouble fixing this, but accordingly to
>>>
http://www.freeipa.org/page/Coding_Style#IF_Statements
>>> I got an idea that statements like:
>>>
>>> if (foo)
>>> bar();
>>> else
>>> baz();
>>>
>>> are legal so I assumed that:
>>>
>>> if (foo)
>>> bar();
>>>
>>> would be legal too. So it may be a good idea to clarify this in above
>>> mentioned document or maybe It's just my bad reading. :-)
>> Per IPA developers not using braces is discouraged. I agree the wiki
>> page should be clarified.
>> _______________________________________________
>> sssd-devel mailing list
>> sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
> Hi,
>
> thanks for information. Improved patches are attached.
>
> PR
>
Looks good and works fine.
I will just squash in two small style changes I didn't tell you about
earlier, but no need to resend the patches:
--- a/src/tests/cmocka/test_search_bases.c
+++ b/src/tests/cmocka/test_search_bases.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static struct sdap_search_base** generate_bases(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
search_bases = talloc_array(mem_ctx, struct sdap_search_base *, n + 1);
assert_non_null(search_bases);
- for(i=0; i < n; ++i) {
+ for (i=0; i < n; ++i) {
I hate to rain on parade but ++i is really confusing.
I know that for "for" loops it makes no difference (at least this is
what Goggle said) but for me any use of ++i seems odd.
It is "increment then do" with languages like C that is 0 based for
arrays it is more "do and then increment".
Does the use of ++i (though legitimate in this case) makes only me
uncomfortable or I am not the only one?
Can we use i++ and reserve ++i only for the cases where it is really
meaningful and justified?
I do not see anything in the style guide about this but should we have
something?
err = sdap_create_search_base(mem_ctx, dns[i],
LDAP_SCOPE_SUBTREE,
NULL, &search_bases[i]);
if (err != EOK) {
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static void do_test_get_by_dn(const char *dn, const char **dns,
size_t n,
opts->sdom = sdom;
res_sdom = sdap_domain_get_by_dn(opts, dn);
- switch(expected_result) {
+ switch (expected_result) {
case DN_NOT_IN_DOMS:
assert_null(res_sdom);
break;
We tend to use a whitespace after most keywords.
ACK.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal
Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.
-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?