[SSSD] [PATCH] Add integration tests

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Tue May 5 13:30:49 UTC 2015


On (05/05/15 15:24), Michal Židek wrote:
>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.
>
I prefer longer version.

So we can read test as a novel without looking into function
and we will exactly know what it does.

LS



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list