On 13/03/15 11:55, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 13.3.2015 11:34, Jan Cholasta wrote:
Dne 13.3.2015 v 11:17 Martin Kosek napsal(a):
On 03/13/2015 11:00 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 13.3.2015 10:42, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 13.3.2015 10:18, Martin Kosek wrote:
On 03/12/2015 05:10 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
Petr Spacek wrote:
On 12.3.2015 16:23, Rob Crittenden wrote:
David Kupka wrote:
On 03/06/2015 06:00 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
Upgrade plugins which modify LDAP data directly should not be
in --test mode.

This patch is a workaround, to ensure update with --test
option will not
modify any LDAP data.


Patch attached.

Ideally we want to fix all plugins to dry-run the upgrade not
just skip
when there is '--test' option but it is a good first step.
Works for me, ACK.

I agree that this breaks the spirit of --test and think it
should be
fixed before committing.
Considering how often is the option is used ... I do not think
that this
requires 'proper' fix now. It was broken for *years* so this
patch is a huge
improvement and IMHO should be commited in current form. We can
re-visit it
later on, open a ticket :-)

No. There is no rush for this, at least not for the promise of a
fix that will never come.
I checked the code and to me, the proper fix looks like instrumenting
ldap.update_entry calls in upgrade plugins with

if options.test:
     log message
     do the update

right? I see just couple places that would need to be updated:

$ git grep -E "(ldap|conn).update_entry" ipaserver/install/plugins
ipaserver/install/plugins/update_idranges.py: ldap.update_entry(entry)
ipaserver/install/plugins/update_idranges.py: ldap.update_entry(entry)
ipaserver/install/plugins/update_services.py: ldap.update_entry(entry)

So from my POV, very quick fix. In that case, I would also prefer a
fix now
than a ticket that would never be done.
I really dislike this approach because I consider it flawed by
design. Plugin
author has to think about it all the time and do not forget to add if
otherwise ... too bad.

I can see two 'safer' ways to do that:
- LDAP transactions :-)
- 'mock_writes=True' option in LDAP backend which would print
modlists instead
of applying them (and return success to the caller).

Both cases eliminate the need to scatter 'ifs' all over update
plugins and do
not add risk of forgetting about one of them when adding/changing
plugin code.
I like idea about mock_writes=True. However, I think we still need to
sure plugin writers rely on options.test value to see that we aren't
going to write the data. The reason for it is that we might get into
configurations where plugins would be doing updates based on earlier
performed tasks.  If task configuration is not going to be written, its
status will never be correct and plugin would get an error.
That is exactly why I mentioned LDAP transactions. There is no other
way how
to test complex plugins which actually read own writes (except mocking
whole LDAP interface somewhere).
While this may be a good idea long term, I do not think any of us is
considering implementing the LDAP transaction support within work on
this refactoring.

So in this thread, let us focus on how to fix options.test mid-term. I
currently see 2 proposed ways:
- Making the plugins aware of options.test
- Make ldap2 write operations only print the update and not do it.
Although thinking of this approach, I think it may make some plugins
like DNS loop forever. IIRC, at least DNS upgrade plugin have loop
    - search for all unfixed DNS zones
    - fix them with ldap update
    - was the search truncated, i.e.  are there more zones to update?
      if yes, go back to start
  - Make the plugins not call {add,update,delete}_entry themselves but rather
return the updates like they should. This is what the ticket
(<https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3448>) requests and what should be
done to make --test work for them.
How do you propose to handle iterative updates like the DNS upgrade mentioned
by Martin^1? Return set of updates along with boolean 'call me again'?
Something else?

So instead of DNS commands logic, which can be used in plugin, we should reimplement the dnzone commands in upgrade plugin, to get modlist? And keep watching it and do same modifications for upgrade plugin as are done in DNS plugin.


Martin Basti

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to