On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:52:08AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 10:30 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >>
> >>Patches are rebased now. I hope it will be ok now.
> >>
> >>Petr
> >Sorry, now my local CI tests failed... I will rebase it again.
>
> Well, now it is right. Local CI tests passed. There has been patch:
>
> "TESTS: Fix warnings -Wshadow":
> commit df9e9a1f9b7dc255eb62c390163c25917b08f5a2
> Refs: sssd-1_13_1-137-gdf9e9a1
> Author: Lukas Slebodnik <lslebodn(a)redhat.com>
> AuthorDate: Mon Nov 9 10:59:55 2015 +0100
> Commit: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek(a)redhat.com>
> CommitDate: Tue Nov 10 15:34:41 2015 +0100
>
> There is change
> # - time_t time)
> # + time_t transaction_time)
> in static void prepare_user().
> My patches were in conflict with it.
>
> Regards
>
> Petr
> From 3ce6073dda27fd7a4626f5cbac1c765274ca5fe0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Petr Cech <pcech(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:34:08 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 1/8] TEST: Add test_user_by_recent_filter_valid
>
> Test users_by_filter_valid() was removed in past. We will add two new
> tests instead of it. Logic of those tests is connected to RECENT
> filter. It returns only records which have been wrote or updated after
> filter was created (or another given time).
>
> users_by_filter_valid() --> user_by_recent_filter_valid()
> users_by_recent_filter_valid()
>
> The first of new tests, user_by_recent_filter_valid(), counts with two
> users. One is stored before filter request creation and the second user
> is stored after filter request creation. So filter returns only one
> user.
>
> The second of new tests, users_by_recent_filter_valid(), counts with
> three users. One is stored before filter request creation and two users
> are stored after filter request creation. So filter returns two users.
>
> This patch adds user_by_recent_filter_valid().
>
> Resolves:
>
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2730
> ---
> src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c
b/src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c
> index
85d986bd7d159dc238bce4bc770272d18288f2dd..14a40ae6e56b2f6d0b18608bac09bc4680245153 100644
> --- a/src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c
> +++ b/src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c
> @@ -1239,6 +1239,53 @@ static void cache_req_user_by_filter_test_done(struct
tevent_req *req)
> ctx->tctx->done = true;
> }
>
> +void test_user_by_recent_filter_valid(void **state)
> +{
> + struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx = NULL;
> + TALLOC_CTX *req_mem_ctx = NULL;
> + struct tevent_req *req = NULL;
> + const char *ldbname = NULL;
> + errno_t ret;
> +
> + test_ctx = talloc_get_type_abort(*state, struct cache_req_test_ctx);
> + test_ctx->create_user = true;
> +
> + ret = sysdb_store_user(test_ctx->tctx->dom, TEST_USER_NAME2,
> + "pwd", 1001, 1001, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> + "cn="TEST_USER_NAME2",dc=test",
> + NULL, NULL, 1000, time(NULL)-1);
> + assert_int_equal(ret, EOK);
> +
> + req_mem_ctx = talloc_new(test_ctx->tctx);
> + check_leaks_push(req_mem_ctx);
I think the last question is whether we want to use this new context or
just call check_leaks_push(test_ctx) recursively. I don't really mind
too much, both would work for me.
Unless someone opposes, I would push the patch as-is.
I have a different question. (i haven't read patches yet)
But I can see that check_leaks_push is called after sysdb_store_user.
I would like to know why.
because we shout try to check leaks "caused" in this function.
LS