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

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Tue Jun 2 08:56:03 UTC 2015


On (02/06/15 09:12), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 08:31:56AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> 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.
>
>OK, fixed.
>
>> 
>> >+    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?
>
>I'm not sure. So far the main domain cannot be disabled, only offline.
>Only subdomains can be disabled when processing newly updated subdomain
>list. I also think the disabled flag should only be readable by the
>domain utility module and maybe the subdomains code, not the deamon.
>
>I think this question will be more valid once we start supporting drop-in
>configurations. Then, during processing I guess we would disable even main
>existing domains and start enabling the new ones.
>
Fair enough

http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/16/61/summary.html
ACK

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list