[SSSD] [PATCH] Add integration tests

Michal Židek mzidek at redhat.com
Tue May 5 13:24:12 UTC 2015


On 05/04/2015 02:13 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> 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"?
>

"has" and "has_only" is also good IMO.

Michal



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list