On 26.11.2015 10:04, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,

I agree to all your points but one. please, see my comment below

On 11/25/2015 07:42 PM, Martin Basti wrote:

0) Note
Please be aware of https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5469 during
KRA testing

Please do not use MIN and MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL constants, this may change
over time, use DOMAIN_LEVEL_0 and DOMAIN_LEVEL_1 for domain level 0 and 1

Why uninstall KRA then server, is not enough just uninstall server which
covers KRA uninstall?

+    def teardown_method(self, method):
+        for host in self.replicas:
+            host.run_command(self.kra_uninstall, raiseonerr=False)
+            tasks.uninstall_master(host)

Can be this function more generic? It should allow specify host where
KRA should be installed not just master

+    def test_kra_install_master(self):
+        self.master.run_command(self.kra_install)


Can be the test name more specific, something like

please remove this, the patch is on review and it will be pushed sooner
than tests
+    @pytest.mark.xfail  # Ticket N 5455

and as I mentioned in ticket #5455, I cannot reproduce it with
ipa-kra-install, so please provide steps to reproduce if you insist that
this still does not work as expected with KRA.

6) This is completely wrong, it removes everything that we tried to
achieve with previous patches with domain level in CI

Actually, being able to configure domain level per class is WAY more convenient, than to always have to think which domain level is appropriate for which particular test during jenkins job configuration. In fact, I should have thought about it from the very beginning. For example, in test_replica_promotion.py we have on class, which intiates with domain level = 1, while others - with domain level 0. With config-based approach, we would have to implement a separate step that raises domain level. Overall, I am against the approach, when you have to remember to set certain domain level in config for any particular test. The tests themselves should be aware of the domain level they need.
I do not say that we should not have something that overrides settings in from config in a particular test case, I say your patch is doing it wrong.

I agree it is useful to have param domain_level in install_master, and intall_topo methods, but is cannot be MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL by default, because with your current patch the domain_level in config is not used at all, it will be always MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL

For example I want to achieve this goal:
test_vault.py, this test suite can run on domain level1 and on domain level0, so with one test we can test 2 domain levels just with putting domain level into config file.

I agree that with extraordinary test like replica promotion test is, we need something that allows override the config file.

As I said bellow, domain_level default value should be None in install_master and install_topo plugin. If domain level was specified use the specified one, if not (value is None) use the domain level from config file.


[PATCH] Enabled setting domain_level per class derived from TestIntegration

When I configure domain level 0 in yaml config, how is this supposed to
get into install methods when you removed that code?

-        "--domain-level=%i" % host.config.domain_level
+        "--domain-level=%i" % domain_level

You always use MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL in this case or whatever is specified in
domain_level option.
I suggest to use domain_level=None, and when it is None use
'host.config.domain_level', if it is not None, use 'domain_level'

With this we can specify domain level in config file for test that can
be used for both domain levels and you can manually specify domain level
for test that requires specific domain level.

Also this should go away

      def install(cls, mh):
+        if hasattr(cls, "domain_level") and cls.master:
+            cls.master.config.domain_level = cls.domain_level
          if cls.topology is None:

I do not see reason why test should override configuration in config in
this case.


On 25.11.2015 16:44, Oleg Fayans wrote:

Here is the updated version of the patch (more tests + fixed the
issues of the first one) + patch 0017, that implements the necessary
changes in the background code, i. e. patch 16 does not work without
patch 17

On 11/18/2015 05:20 PM, Martin Basti wrote:

On 09.11.2015 15:09, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi guys,

Here are first two automated testcases from this (so far incomplete)
testplan: http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Replica_Promotion/Test_plan

Testplan review is highly appreciated


What is the reason to add an unused parameter to 'domain_level' to
Also it is good practise to add new option as the last parameter.

cab you in both tests specify a domain level with constant instead of
number literal?

both test call install_topo with custom domain level, but it cannot work
because 1)  (did you run the test?)

How the test "TestLevel1" is supposed to work?
Respectively why there is call of install_topo() that installs replica. As this test just tests that ipa-replica-prepare is not working anymore, is it worth to spend 20 minutes with installing replica and then just no
tot use it? IMO to install master in install step is enough.


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

Reply via email to