[SSSD] [PATCH] TESTS: extend PAM responder unit test

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Nov 5 09:29:41 UTC 2015


On (05/11/15 09:50), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 11/05/2015 08:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (04/11/15 18:58), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On 11/04/2015 06:41 PM, Sumit Bose wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 11/04/2015 03:02 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>>>On (04/11/15 14:40), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also one of few not yet tested corners of pam_reply() - 'Printing account
>>>>>>>expiration warning for sshd' requires pam_service to be sshd, but I can
>>>>>>>change when I will write another test (it might happen soon as pcech is
>>>>>>>working on similar change in adjacent code).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's exactly the reason why the default value should not be sshd.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand why this would be the reason can you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>Because a default value should not lead to a code path which handles a
>>>>special case. The general PAM responder test should not run through the
>>>>'sshd' case in pam_reply() only if the service is set explicitly to
>>>>'sshd' this features should be tests.
>>>
>>>Sure, but just setting sshd would not lead to execution of this branch AFAIK
>>>at least pam verbosity would be needed to be set. As said before service
>>>value doesn't matter in current test so IMO this patch would only set service
>>>to more sane default however I agree with you that 'generic service name' is
>>>not a bad idea at all.
>>>
>>We spent enormous time with such unimportant patch.
>>
>>I pushed patch with Sumit's propsal "pam_test_service"
>>using one-liner rule.
>
>So this rule really allows you to:
>
>1) amend patch yourself,
>2) change authorship of the patch,
Sumit proposed "pam_test_service" so he is author.

>3) ack the patch yourself,
yes

>4) push the patch yourself,
yes

But only for oneliners

LS


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list