[SSSD] [PATCH] TESTS: Add test for get_next_domain

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Tue Jun 2 06:31:56 UTC 2015


On (01/06/15 20:56), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>There is a strange construct in our sss_domain_info handling code:
>    while (dom && dom->disabled) {
>        dom = get_next_domain(dom, true);
>    }
>
>I wasn't sure if this code was valid at all, so I wrote a test. Turns
>out the code is semi-valid -- if the domain you pass in is disabled,
>which is technically possible. It could be shortened to "if" instead of
>"while", but meh.
>
>At least we have one more test :-)

>From a622e79e7ffd02a5035ce9e61c42f7079c52c054 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek at redhat.com>
>Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 21:11:43 +0200
>Subject: [PATCH] TESTS: Add test for get_next_domain
>
>---
> src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 138 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c b/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c
>index 0cfbaa5043e2a36551208b9da23d7423a35e60a4..5f0ca117688246844450c29f1a3182200725f6ae 100644
>--- a/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c
>+++ b/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c
>@@ -454,6 +454,137 @@ void test_find_domain_by_sid_disabled(void **state)
>     }
> }
> 
>+static struct sss_domain_info *named_domain(TALLOC_CTX *mem_ctx,
>+                                            const char *name,
>+                                            struct sss_domain_info *parent)
>+{
>+    struct sss_domain_info *dom = NULL;
>+
>+    dom = talloc_zero(mem_ctx, struct sss_domain_info);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+
>+    dom->name = talloc_strdup(dom, name);
>+    assert_non_null(dom->name);
>+
>+    dom->parent = parent;
>+
>+    return dom;
>+}
>+
>+/*
>+ * dom1 -> sub1a
>+ *  |
>+ * dom2 -> sub2a -> sub2b
>+ *
>+ */
>+static int setup_dom_tree(void **state)
>+{
>+    struct dom_list_test_ctx *test_ctx;
>+    struct sss_domain_info *head = NULL;
>+    struct sss_domain_info *dom = NULL;
>+
>+    assert_true(leak_check_setup());
>+
>+    test_ctx = talloc_zero(global_talloc_context, struct dom_list_test_ctx);
>+    assert_non_null(test_ctx);
>+
>+    dom = named_domain(test_ctx, "dom1", NULL);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    head = dom;
>+
>+    dom = named_domain(test_ctx, "sub1a", head);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    head->subdomains = dom;
>+
>+    dom = named_domain(test_ctx, "dom2", NULL);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    head->next = dom;
>+
>+    dom = named_domain(test_ctx, "sub2a", head->next);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    head->next->subdomains = dom;
>+
>+    dom = named_domain(test_ctx, "sub2b", head->next);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    head->next->subdomains->next = dom;
>+
>+    test_ctx->dom_count = 2;
>+    test_ctx->dom_list = head;
>+
>+    check_leaks_push(test_ctx);
>+    *state = test_ctx;
>+    return 0;
>+}
>+
>+static int teardown_dom_tree(void **state)
>+{
>+    struct dom_list_test_ctx *test_ctx = talloc_get_type(*state,
>+                                                      struct dom_list_test_ctx);
>+    if (test_ctx == NULL) {
>+        DEBUG(SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE, "Type mismatch\n");
>+        return 1;
>+    }
>+
>+    assert_true(check_leaks_pop(test_ctx) == true);
                   check_leaks_pop already return boolean.
                   So you needn't copare to true.

>+    talloc_free(test_ctx);
>+    assert_true(leak_check_teardown());
>+    return 0;
>+}
>+
>+static void test_get_next_domain(void **state)
>+{
>+    struct dom_list_test_ctx *test_ctx = talloc_get_type(*state,
>+                                                      struct dom_list_test_ctx);
>+    struct sss_domain_info *dom = NULL;
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list, false);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    assert_string_equal(dom->name, "dom2");
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(dom, false);
>+    assert_null(dom);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_get_next_domain_descend(void **state)
>+{
>+    struct dom_list_test_ctx *test_ctx = talloc_get_type(*state,
>+                                                      struct dom_list_test_ctx);
>+    struct sss_domain_info *dom = NULL;
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list, true);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    assert_string_equal(dom->name, "sub1a");
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(dom, true);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    assert_string_equal(dom->name, "dom2");
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(dom, true);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    assert_string_equal(dom->name, "sub2a");
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(dom, true);
>+    assert_non_null(dom);
>+    assert_string_equal(dom->name, "sub2b");
>+
>+    dom = get_next_domain(dom, false);
>+    assert_null(dom);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_get_next_domain_disabled(void **state)
>+{
>+    struct dom_list_test_ctx *test_ctx = talloc_get_type(*state,
>+                                                      struct dom_list_test_ctx);
>+    struct sss_domain_info *dom = NULL;
>+
>+    for (dom = test_ctx->dom_list; dom; dom = get_next_domain(dom, true)) {
>+        dom->disabled = true;
>+    }
it would be good to have more test with combination of some disabled domains
and with or without subdomain.

There I have a question.
If main domain is disabled should we return its enabled subdomains?
Does it make sense?

Thank you very much for increasing code coverage.

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list