Hi Matthias, On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 22:55 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote: > first this patch originally wasn't by me - I've only integrated it. But > it is really bad style to use such "manual" testing code? And there are > some more places where this is used - always in the same file. Well, you took responsibility for it when you pushed it...
Either way, we should be moving away from printing test results manually and rather try to use the convenience functions in more places. I realize there are still some places where they're not used yet but we should be reducing that number, not adding to it. Cheers, Jelmer > Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > Hi Matthias, > > > > On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 19:15 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote: > > > >> @@ -173,11 +174,19 @@ testit "wbinfo -D against $TARGET" $wbinfo -D > >> $DOMAIN || failed=`expr $failed + > >> > >> testit "wbinfo -i against $TARGET" $wbinfo -i "$DOMAIN/$USERNAME" || > >> failed=`expr $failed + 1` > >> > >> -testit "wbinfo --uid-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --uid-info $admin_uid > >> +testit "wbinfo --uid-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --uid-info $admin_uid > >> || failed=`expr $failed + 1` > >> > >> -# this does not work > >> -knownfail "wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --group-info > >> "S-1-22-2-0" > >> -knownfail "wbinfo --gid-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --gid-info 30001 > >> +echo "test: wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET" > >> +rawgid=`$wbinfo --group-info "Domain admins" | sed > >> 's/.*:\([0-9][0-9]*\):/\1/'` > >> +if test x$? = x0; then > >> + echo "success: wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET" > >> +else > >> + echo "failure: wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET" > >> + failed=`expr $failed + 1` > >> +fi > >> > > Is there any reason for manually printing here rather than using the > > testit function? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jelmer > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
