On 06/27/2016 10:28 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
+1, our tests should not fiddle with the provisioned environment as much
as they sometimes do.
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 on
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