[SSSD] [PATCH] intg: Add more LDAP tests

Nikolai Kondrashov Nikolai.Kondrashov at redhat.com
Wed Oct 7 13:56:54 UTC 2015


On 10/07/2015 04:13 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 04:02:32PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>> On 10/06/2015 12:27 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 06:15:52PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Here is a patch set fixing some things in integration tests and adding more
>>>> LDAP tests:
>>>
>>> (Not a full review, just adding my ideas and impressions)
>>>
>>> I read these patches when I tried to add tests for the failing POSIX
>>> check. That didn't work out, but at least I have a better idea about the
>>> integration tests now :-)
>>
>> Was the problem with the integration test framework or with something else?
>> If it's the former, can I offer my help?
>
> No, it was that while the code that triggered the error was in the
> generic LDAP provider, the bug itself manifested only in AD provider..so
> we'd need to wrap Samba to really test the bug.

Well, I can help with *that* :)

>>> Most importantly, the current tests are largely using enumeration. That
>>> not wrong and we want this codepath to be tested, but it's not the
>>> default of SSSD, so we want the non-enumeration also.
>>
>> Alright, I'll try to use the py.test fixture parameters for this. It's a
>> cumbersome facility, but perhaps we can use it. If that fails, I'll try
>> something else.
>>
>> I worry a bit about the doubled test runtime, though. Can we have some tests
>> running only with either disabled or enabled enumeration?
>
> Maybe..in general I think non-enumeration are more important so if the
> rigorous/essential parameters also apply to which integration tests we
> run, then I would prefer non-enumeration tests.

Alright. I think we can arrange limiting the number of tests for the essential
run, somehow, if need be.

>> Riiight, I completely forgot about the other schemas. Sure, we'll need
>> something more than a boolean. However, how about we define a couple constant
>> string variables and supply them instead of literal strings to reduce the
>> likelihood of typos?
>
> Yes, that's even better. Would you prefer if I sent such patch (atop
> your patches) ?

Err, no, I think I'd better do it myself, thank you :) I'll be changing these
parts anyway.

Nick


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list