[SSSD] [PATCH] TESTS: Build test_child even without cmocka

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Wed Dec 3 20:28:28 UTC 2014


On (03/12/14 20:00), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 06:37:35PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (03/12/14 18:12), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >test_child was declared to be build always but only actually built when
>> >cmocka was available, which is not the case on all platforms.
>> >
>> >We can either 1) move the test_child outside the HAVE_CMOCKA or 2) only
>> >append test_child to check_PROGRAMS when cmocka is available which is what
>> >the attached patch does.
>> >
>> >I'm fine with either option. Thanks for opinions/review.
>> 
>> >From 67db9748960fbaf6deac4c01084bc23bc1321723 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com>
>> >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:00:25 +0100
>> >Subject: [PATCH] TESTS: Build test_child even without cmocka
>> >
>> >---
>> > Makefile.am | 5 ++++-
>> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
>> >index 7a36543061789bbd370fcbb118b66edeb8025e89..6d754f062245cc073c945218f6755dab1c59c543 100644
>> >--- a/Makefile.am
>> >+++ b/Makefile.am
>> >@@ -236,10 +236,13 @@ endif   # HAVE_CMOCKA
>> > check_PROGRAMS = \
>> >     stress-tests \
>> >     krb5-child-test \
>> >-    test-child \
>> 
>> test-child is simple program without external dependencies.
>> It does not depend on libcmocka therefore should not be in block HAVE_CMOCKA.
>
>But currently it's only built to supplement a cmocka program, so
>building it would be useless.
>
I am not strictly against this micro optimisation.

>> 
>> On the other hand, I am not strictly against. If you decide to do such change
>> then please also change the name of this binary. This binary isn't test.
>> It is executable file which is used by another test.
>
>it's a child program used by the test_child_common.c unit and actually
>depends on it via environment variables. Can you suggest a better name?
>I generally suck at naming things and tbh don't consider the name too
>important to spend much time on.

The name was confusing for me. I wanted to execute child test to fix a valgrind
issue. And my 1st attempt was wong.

sh$ ./test-child
(Wed Dec  3 21:18:14:367425 2014) [sssd] [main] (0x0400): test_child completed successfully

the 2nd attept works.
sh$ ./test_child_common
[==========] Running 2 test(s).
[ RUN      ] test_exec_child
[       OK ] test_exec_child
[ RUN      ] test_exec_child_extra_args
[       OK ] test_exec_child_extra_args
[==========] 2 test(s) run.
[  PASSED  ] 2 test(s).

 0 FAILED TEST(S)


We have {ldap,krb5,selinux}-child.
IMHO the better name would be simple-child or dummy-child (maybe example-child)

BTW confusion can be caused by the fact that we are not uniform with name
of tests.

Some tests have suffix "-tests" sydb-tests, dyndns-tests ...
and others have prefix "test[-_]": test-find-uid, test-authtok, test_sss_idmap,
     test_search_bases ...


LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list