[SSSD] [PATCH] util: Include disabled domains in link_forest_roots

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Oct 1 13:08:33 UTC 2015


On (01/10/15 13:56), Michal Židek wrote:
>On 09/16/2015 03:56 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
>>On 09/15/2015 04:03 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>On 09/14/2015 05:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>patch for ticket
>>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
>>>>>>is in the attachment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>>Michal
>>>>>
>>>>>> From 7c454bc2a737be05068418a5eef7fe9446bb5fa8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>>>>2001
>>>>>>From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <mzidek at redhat.com>
>>>>>>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:37:48 +0200
>>>>>>Subject: [PATCH] util: Include disabled domains in link_forest_roots
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ticket:
>>>>>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>  src/db/sysdb_subdomains.c     |  6 +++---
>>>>>>  src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c |  3 +++
>>>>>>  src/util/domain_info_utils.c  | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>  src/util/util.h               |  3 +++
>>>>>>  4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>The patch looks good but whenever I see us adding more and more boolean
>>>>>switches, I wonder if we should just use flags instead?
>>>>>
>>>>>This:
>>>>>     get_next_domain_ex(d, GND_USE_DISABLED | GND_DESCEND);
>>>>>Reads quite a bit easier to me than:
>>>>>     get_next_domain_ex(d, true, false);
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, bonus point are acquired next time we add a new flag, because not
>>>>>all callers of the function must be converted..
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>I think this is very good point. It will also give us implicit
>>>>boolean parameter value (if not set, it is automatically false)
>>>>which improves readability a lot. I wander if it is good to add
>>>>the _ex function in this case. Would you agree if I changed the
>>>>original get_next_domain to use flags? I know, it needs to be changed
>>>>on more places, but I think such small refactoring makes more
>>>>sence than adding _ex function with flags.
>>>>
>>>>Or is this what you were saying? I am not sure because
>>>>you used the _ex function in your example of "nice"
>>>>usage.
>>>
>>>If we have a test for different usages of the flag-based function, then
>>>I guess it would be better than keeping the existing get_next_domain
>>>function.
>>>
>>>We can also split master from sssd-1-13 already..
>>>
>>>btw the flag names were completely pulled out of thin air, feel free to
>>>suggest better ones.
>>
>>I split the refactoring of get_next_domain to separate patch.
>>The second patch is just one liner that switches on the
>>disabled domains in link_forest_roots.
>>
>>Michal
>>
>      ____  _   _ __  __ ____
>__/\_| __ )| | | |  \/  |  _ \__/\__
>\    /  _ \| | | | |\/| | |_) \    /
>/_  _\ |_) | |_| | |  | |  __//_  _\
>  \/ |____/ \___/|_|  |_|_|     \/
>
>(low priority, just keeping the thread alive :) )
Would you mind to write unit tests for get_next_domain?

LS


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list