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?
How close would you say is this? Shall I help push it, or make cwrap tests
work outside "make check", within "contrib/ci/run" instead first?
BTW, would we really need a separate parameter for configuration snippet
directory? Can't we have them relative to the top-level sssd-conf?
Thank you.
Nick