On 27.6.2016 10:26, Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 27.6.2016 10:18, Martin Babinsky wrote:
>> On 06/27/2016 10:04 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>>> On 06/27/2016 09:42 AM, Lenka Doudova wrote:
>>>> With newly created AD machines in Brno lab, existing trust tests fail on
>>>> 'ipa dnsforwardzone-add' command claiming the zone is already present,
>>>> as new AD domain is dom-221.idm.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com.
>>>> To prevent these failures I prepared attached patch, that will still
>>>> attempt to add the forward zone, but in case of non-zero return code
>>>> will check the message if it says that the forward zone is already
>>>> configured, and lets the tests continue, if it is so.
>>> Current approach expects that every error of ipa dnsforward-add here
>>> will mean that the zone exists. So it might hide other issues - not very
>>> On the other hand it is not very robust to parse error message.
>>> Question for general audience: What do you think if IPA client's exit
>>> status would be the IPA error code instead of "1" for every error. E.g.
>>> in DuplicateEntry case it's 4002.
>>> Btw, this is not a NACK.
>> Well AFAIK the exit status on POSIX systems is encoded into a single byte so
>> you cannot have the return value greater that 255. We would have to devise
>> some mapping between our XMLRPC status codes and subprocess return codes.
>> Some of our exceptions have defined return values outside plain '1', e.g.
>> NotFound has return value of 2. It would be possible to extend this concept
>> other common errors.
> Even more importantly, the forward zone is completely unnecessary because DNS
> when DNS is set up properly. I would simply remove the dnsforwardzone-add.
Grr, I meant this:
Even more importantly, the forward zone is completely unnecessary when DNS is
set up properly. I would simply remove the dnsforwardzone-add.
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code