[SSSD] [PATCH] - Improved detection of user domain
Lukas Slebodnik
lslebodn at redhat.com
Fri Nov 29 08:58:13 UTC 2013
On (29/11/13 01:34), Dmitri Pal wrote:
>On 11/28/2013 03:52 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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?
>
I prefer to use prefix form "++i", if it is used as standalone statement.
In the other situations, it depends on the context.
LS
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list