[SSSD] More upstream CI tests

Lukas Slebodnik lslebodn at redhat.com
Thu Oct 8 06:02:45 UTC 2015


On (07/10/15 17:42), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 10/07/2015 08:58 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>On (31/08/15 12:31), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>On (19/08/15 23:38), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>as we're stabilizing the 1.13 branch and before we plan what we want to
>>>>>work on during the 1.14 development, we should use that time to write
>>>>>some more tests!
>>>>>
>>>>>Here are some areas where we could add tests. Please discuss or add your
>>>>>ideas, I would like to turn this list into tickets we can start
>>>>>implementing:
>>>>>
>>>>>* Extend the LDAP provider tests with more dynamic test cases.
>>>>>    - add a user to a group, run sss_cache, assert id user displays the
>>>>>      new group and getent group displays the new member
>>>>>    - conversely with removing users from groups
>>There are some tests on list, but still it wuld be good to se a test plan.
>>
>>>>>* Background refresh
>>>>>    - could be built atop the LDAP NSS tests as well. I think we have
>>>>>      all the infrastructure in place.
>>>>>* Local overrides integration test:
>>>>>    - this could be relatively easy, just call the overrides tool and
>>>>>      request the entry. Could be built atop the existing LDAP tests
>>>>>      or even use the local provider.
>>>>Firstly, we need to prepare test cases for this feature.
>>>>We can inspire in downstream ipa-views test case.
>>>>After review of test cases we can split it to several tickets.
>>>
>>>We already do:
>>>    https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2732
>>>
>>>It 'just' needs an assignee..
>>IMHo this should be a very low priority ticket. It's already tested by
>>downstream and they will have automated tests. We should focus to other parts
>
>Well our integration tests already found at least one real nasty bug in sss_override so I suppose that it's only good that the priority was higher and bug was found by us and not customer.
>
>>which cannot be easily tested (whithout greping log files or touching/checking
>>  internals in sysdb)
>>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2697
>>
>>BTW if the tests were ready together with feature it would be something
>>different. It would not be a duplicated effort.
>I'm not sure what you mean by duplicate effort but if you are referring to
>the fact that intg. tests were not prepared by the author of the feature then
duplicate effor means when two persons do the same.
Could you explain how is this related to the fact that tests were not prepared
by author?

>I have to disagree. I have found 2 documentation issues which would hardly by
>found by the author as he already know how the feature works. I believe that
>documentation issues are high priority as one of our major goals is to make
>SSSD more user friendly.
>
That's fine but sss_override would not be used by everyone.
I would be curious how many bugs could be fould after extending
PAM responder tests. The pam responder is used almost by everyone.
(unless using just nss reponder). This might explain why the ticket for
pam responder has higher priority. If you didn't agree about priority
of test for loca override then we could discuss about it and then change.
Priority of ticket should be accepted and not ignored.
If everyone agree that priority of ticket is not useful then we can remove it
from trac.

LS


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list