On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 03:14:52PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 02:10 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:34:30PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Can you rebase the patches atop master, please?
>>
>> I will then review them. But from casual scrolling from the patches, the
>> changes look OK to me.
>
> Thank you, rebased patches are attached.
>
> Michal
>
> From 30af59fc71f09cbc613380df9d5c62b5c0f9a8b5 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 1/3] util: Update get_next_domain's interface
>
> Update get next domain to be able to
> include disbled domains and change the
> interface to accept flags instead of
> multiple booleans.
>
> Ticket:
>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
> diff --git a/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c
b/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c
> index ab73401..3c93492 100644
> --- a/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c
> +++ b/src/responder/common/responder_cache_req.c
> @@ -983,7 +983,7 @@ static errno_t cache_req_next_domain(struct tevent_req *req)
> while (state->domain != NULL && state->check_next
> && state->domain->fqnames
> && !cache_req_input_is_upn(state->input)) {
> - state->domain = get_next_domain(state->domain, false);
> + state->domain = get_next_domain(state->domain, SSS_GND_DESCEND);
Looks like there is a behaviour change here, previously we used false,
now we use descend..
Is it intentional?
It was not intentional. Thanks for catching this.
> From df78c59a241241b9586f5d701e8a789d777bfb21 Mon Sep 17
00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <mzidek(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:26:02 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] tests: Add get_next_domain_flags test
ACK
> From 44518ccbf53aff5f8bc7c8d51aa6067321253431 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <mzidek(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:33:10 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] sysdb: Include disabled domains in link_forest_roots
ACK
Can you also change sysdb_update_subdomains() so that instead of:
/* explicitly use dom->next as we need to check 'disabled' domains */
for (dom = domain->subdomains; dom; dom = dom->next) {
it calls get_next_domain with the disabled flag now?
Ok, but I added it in a separate patch, because it did not fit
in any of the existing ones IMO.
I also did one small change for convenience. I added new
macro that is combination of SSS_GND_DESCEND and
SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED which is called in SSS_GND_ALL_DOMAINS,
to avoid typing for the case when we want to include both
subdomains and disabled domains. For now it is only used
on one place (the third patch), but I think it will be
useful in the future.
Michal