On 02.12.2015 16:18, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 12/01/2015 04:08 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 27.11.2015 16:26, Oleg Fayans wrote:
And patch N 16 passes lint too:
On 11/27/2015 04:03 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi,
On 11/27/2015 03:26 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 27.11.2015 15:04, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
All your suggestions were taken into account. Both patches are
updated. Thank you for your help!
On 11/26/2015 10:50 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
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:
Hi,
0) Note
Please be aware of https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5469
during
KRA testing
1)
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
2)
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)
3)
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)
4)
TestLevel0(Dummy):
Can be the test name more specific, something like
TestReplicaPromotionLevel0
5)
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.
Agreed :)
Martin
[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
@classmethod
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:
return
I do not see reason why test should override configuration in
config in
this case.
Martin
On 25.11.2015 16:44, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi,
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
PATCH 16: NACK
1)
What is the reason to add an unused parameter to
'domain_level' to
install_topo()?
Also it is good practise to add new option as the last
parameter.
2)
cab you in both tests specify a domain level with constant
instead of
number literal?
3)
both test call install_topo with custom domain level, but it
cannot
work
because 1) (did you run the test?)
4)
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.
Martin^2
./make-lint
************* Module ipatests.test_integration.base
ipatests/test_integration/base.py:66: [E1101(no-member),
IntegrationTest.install] Class 'IntegrationTest' has no
'domain_level'
member)
************* Module ipatests.test_integration.test_replica_promotion
ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:16:
[E1101(no-member), Dummy.install] Class 'Dummy' has no 'domain_level'
member)
ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:117:
[E1101(no-member),
TestCAInstall.test_ca_install_without_replica_file]
Module 'ipatests.test_integration.tasks' has no 'setup_replica'
member)
Is it so hard to run pylint before patch is posted for review?
Sorry, my bad. Fixed.
1)
Why is this change in the patch?
- # Clean up the test directory
- host.run_command(['rm', '-rvf', host.config.test_dir])
Otherwise 2 out of 8 tests fail with IOError at line 78 of
ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py
I do not understand yet how does this happen, but if you remove
ipatests folder once, it then fails to be created again.
So this should be in separated patch and investigated properly.
-
2)
is enough to have this check only in install_master, install_topo can
pass None to install_master
+ if domain_level is None:
+ domain_level = master.config.domain_level
Done
3)
IMO replica-manage del should cleanup hosts entry, so following code
should not be needed.
+ if cleanhost:
+ kinit_admin(master)
+ master.run_command(["ipa", "host-del", "--updatedns",
replica.hostname],
+ raiseonerr=False)
Well, in fact it does not. At least the corresponding dns record stays
and causes the subsequent ipa-client-install to fail. Probably it's a
bug. On the other hand, if I promote an existing client to replica and
then delete this replica, then, I probably want the host record (that
was created during client-install) to stay in the system. So, does not
look like a bug to me.
No you don't, because replica uninstallation also removes the client.
I tried it with ipa42, ipa-replica-manage del removes host entry, and
DNS A records, only SSHFP records stay there (I'm not sure if it is bug
or feature)
Also I received this message
"""
Failed to cleanup replica1.ipa.test DNS entries: no matching entry found
You may need to manually remove them from the tree
"""
But, A record has been removed, so this is probably false positive and
it needs to have a ticket.
4)
This variable is not used
+ kra_uninstall = ["ipa-kra-install", "--uninstall", "-U"]
Removed
5)
Why do you need this
+ kra_install = ["ipa-kra-install", "-U", "-p",
config.dirman_password]
when you implemented tasks.install_kra that returns the exactly the same
result?
Right. Removed
6)
PEP8
./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:928:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines,
found 1
./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:934:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines,
found 1
./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:939:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines,
found 1
./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:943:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines,
found 1
./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:950:80: E501 line too long (80 > 79
characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:29:80: E501 line
too long (85 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:64:80: E501 line
too long (85 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:67:80: E501 line
too long (88 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:93:80: E501 line
too long (80 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:94:80: E501 line
too long (83 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:118:80: E501 line
too long (81 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:128:80: E501 line
too long (80 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:129:80: E501 line
too long (82 > 79 characters)
./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:181:80: E501 line
too long (80 > 79 characters)
Most of these complaints are unrelated to the current patches.
It's better to create a separate patch addressing PEP8 errors.
I beg for your pardon, those PEP8 errors have been introduced by your
patches.
7)
Why this must be stored in instance? IMO to have it stored as local
variable is perfect
TestKRAInstall, TestCAInstall
self.replica1_filename = tasks.get_replica_filename(replica1)
self.replica2_filename = tasks.get_replica_filename(replica2)
Agree. Fixed
--
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
