On (05/02/16 19:34), Michal Židek wrote:
On 02/05/2016 06:32 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (05/02/16 17:30), Michal Židek wrote:
>>On 02/05/2016 05:13 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>On (05/02/16 16:56), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>Hopefully the last one.
>>>
>>>>From 58b06b8fee18c4242e301ecf71f92a77f6ba6e7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>From: Pavel Reichl <preichl(a)redhat.com>
>>>>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 08:34:14 -0500
>>>>Subject: [PATCH] IDMAP: Add test to validate off by one bug
>>>>
>>>>Resolves:
>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2922
>>>>---
>>>>src/tests/cmocka/test_sss_idmap.c | 125
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>1 file changed, 125 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/src/tests/cmocka/test_sss_idmap.c
b/src/tests/cmocka/test_sss_idmap.c
>>>>index
00e03ffd9ab1532fb55795b9935b254c8a89ec16..2c99a09e6d11e8d731860eaad94eda0900fafabe 100644
>>>>--- a/src/tests/cmocka/test_sss_idmap.c
>>>>+++ b/src/tests/cmocka/test_sss_idmap.c
>>>>@@ -43,6 +43,17 @@
>>>>#define TEST_OFFSET 1000000
>>>>#define TEST_OFFSET_STR "1000000"
>>>>
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_MIN_ID 1842600000
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_MAX_ID 1842799999
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_MAX_ID_PLUS_ONE (TEST_2922_MAX_ID + 1)
>>>>+
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_DFL_SLIDE 9212
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_FIRST_SID TEST_DOM_SID"-0"
>>>>+/* Last SID = first SID + (default) rangesize -1 */
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_LAST_SID TEST_DOM_SID"-199999"
>>>>+/* Last SID = first SID + rangesize */
>>>>+#define TEST_2922_LAST_SID_PLUS_ONE TEST_DOM_SID"-200000"
>>>>+
>>>We should prefer to use constants instead of #defines.
>>>Constants are more type safe.
>>>
>>
>>Do you want Pavel to change it? If so, then I would prefer
>>at least the strings to remain as #defines. It is more
>>comfortable to concatenate string literals. But honestly
>>I am ok with the numbers to remain as #defines as well,
>>but I agree with your point in general.
>>
>Yes, please.
>
>Define can still be used for simplification of string initialisation
>e.g.
>#define DOM_SID "S-1-2-3-4"
>const char TEST_2922_LAST_SID[] = DOM_SID"-99";
>const char TEST_2922_LAST_SID_PLUS_ONE[] = DOM_SID"-100";
>
Yes, they can. But do you require it? As I said I would
prefer the strings to remain #defines, but it is not strong
preference.
I'm sorry but your preference is not type safe.
It's much simpler to identify errors caused by wrong
usage of constants. If you like macros then you can be honored
in future to try find bugs in macro generated code (nss-pam-ldapd).
>>>
>>>
>>>>struct test_ctx {
>>>> TALLOC_CTX *mem_idmap;
>>>> struct sss_idmap_ctx *idmap_ctx;
>>>>@@ -128,6 +139,53 @@ static int setup_ranges(struct test_ctx *test_ctx,
bool external_mapping,
>>>> return 0;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>+static int setup_ranges_2922(struct test_ctx *test_ctx)
>>>>+{
>>>>+ struct sss_idmap_range range;
>>>>+ enum idmap_error_code err;
>>>>+ const char *name;
>>>>+ const char *sid;
>>>>+ /* Pick a new slice. */
>>>>+ id_t slice_num = -1;
>>>>+
>>>>+ if (test_ctx == NULL) {
>>>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE,
>>>>+ "test context is NULL\n");
>>>>+ return 1;
>>>>+ }
>>>>+
>>>>+ name = TEST_DOM_NAME;
>>>>+ sid = TEST_DOM_SID;
>>>>+
>>>>+ err = sss_idmap_calculate_range(test_ctx->idmap_ctx, sid,
&slice_num,
>>>>+ &range);
>>>>+ if (err != IDMAP_SUCCESS) {
>>>>+ DEBUG(SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE,
>>>>+ "sss_idmap_calculate_range failed: exp: [%d] but got
[%d]\n",
>>>>+ IDMAP_SUCCESS, err);
>>>>+ return 1;
>>>Please use different numbers for different failures.
>>
>>I think it is OK to use the same number in tests, as long as
>>the debug message is present. We can identify the error
>>based on stderr messages.
>>
>No it's not OK to have same return code.
>The return codes have to be unique.
They do not need to be unique here. Compare:
[ RUN ] test_map_id_2922
(Fri Feb 5 19:00:17:723118 2016) [sssd]
[test_sss_idmap_setup_with_domains_2922] (0x0010): test contex is NULL
Could not run the test - check test fixtures
[ ERROR ] test_map_id_2922
With this:
[ RUN ] test_map_id_2922
(Fri Feb 5 19:01:17:376602 2016) [sssd]
[test_sss_idmap_setup_with_domains_2922] (0x0010): test contex is NULL
Could not run the test - check test fixtures
[ ERROR ] test_map_id_2922
I returned different error code in both cases but the result
is the same.
That's because of insufficient desing of libcmocka.
Unit test should not contain any if conditions
which are not tested. If you run code coverage of unit test
it should cover 100% of code path of unit test.
However, the "official way" of handling errors in setup
and teardown function does not allow to do this.
In other words, returning error code is useless.
As you pointed out there's no difference and we need to
use debug messages to find out where it failed.
that's the worst situation. The error message
and line where it happened should be logged automaticaly
or thearduwn function should return unique identifier
of failure.
The usage of debug message (printf error) is kind of workaround
for current state. Workarounds should be removed after fixing the staff.
So we will need to retun a unique error code anyway in the end
and there's no reason to do it twice.
LS