On 06/27/2016 11:05 AM, Lenka Doudova wrote:
On 06/27/2016 10:33 AM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
On 06/27/2016 10:28 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
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:
Hi!
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.
Lenka
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
good.
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.
+1, our tests should not fiddle with the provisioned environment as
much as they sometimes do.
Well, I have nothing against removing it completely, but left it there
just because with previous AD machines with "wild" domains it was
necessary.
Looking at the code, your suggestion would probably mean to entirely
remove method configure_dns_for_trust from
ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py, right? I'll have to verify this
won't break anything else.
Lenka
Hi,
to get back to this issue: do we really want to have the DNS
configuration method removed? I mean, we no longer need it for our CI
tests, with new AD VMs it works without it, but should somebody else
with different setup run these tests, they could experience failures
because their AD domain would not be configured in DNS by default and
the test would no longer provide that configuration. It doesn't feel
right to delete something we needed before but don't need anymore, in
case somebody else is depending on the same configuration. But of
course, I'll abide by your counsel.
In case the call on DNS configuration method really is removed, should I
remove even it's definition? It's not used anywhere else, so it would be
quite logical.
Thanks,
Lenka
--
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
