[SSSD] [PATCH] Add integration tests

Nikolai Kondrashov Nikolai.Kondrashov at redhat.com
Mon May 4 12:13:30 UTC 2015


On 04/29/2015 05:58 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
> On 04/29/2015 12:23 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> On 04/28/2015 05:49 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>> On 04/27/2015 05:56 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>>> On 04/24/2015 01:44 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> I understand your motivation to keep the interface accessible and safe, and
>> I'm willing to implement it your way, if this message doesn't change your
>> mind.
>>
>> May I suggest another solution, which might make it more palatable? What
>> if we
>> replace lists/tuples with functions or class constructors, which would
>> annotate what's happening?
>>
>> So, instead of writing this rather unusual, but illustrative example:
>>
>>      pattern = (
>>          {name='group1', gid=1001, mem=['userA', 'userB', 'userC']},
>>          {name='group2', gid=1002, mem=('userX', 'userY')},
>>      )
>>      ent.group_assert(pattern)
>>
>> You would write something like this:
>>
>>      pattern = ent.some(
>>          {name='group1', gid=1001, mem=ent.all('userA', 'userB', 'userC')},
>>          {name='group2', gid=1002, mem=ent.some('userX', 'userY')}
>>      )
>>      ent.group_assert(pattern)
>>
>> Theoretically, we can also make a distinction of matching some/all of
>> dictionary members, but I don't see that as useful ATM.
>
> This does not look bad to me. Please add example of usage to
> the docstring of the "all" and "some" functions. So that
> it is clear where and how the functions are to be used.
> Also add reference to these functions to the diff function,
> so that they are linked both ways (something along the
> line "use this and that to create the list or tuple
> and do not craft it manually"... of course better
> wording is advised :) )
>
> Also I would rename the "some" to "contains" and "all"
> to "contains_only". The "some" word misleads the reader
> a little in the way that "some of the listed
> users must match, but not all", which is not the case.
> The "all" can mislead the reader in the way "all these
> members must match, but we do not care if there are some
> others", which is also not how it works.

Alright. Do you mind if I replace "contains" with the shorter "has"?
I.e. make that "has" and "has_only"?

Nick



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list