On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:48:41PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:45:00PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> > >Otherwise ACK.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > >CI is still running..
> >
> > There is new patch set attached.
>
> These patches look OK to me code-wise, waiting for CI
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 01:27:24PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:48:41PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:45:00PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> > > >Otherwise ACK.
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >CI is still running..
> > >
> > > There is new
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (13/11/15 11:32), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:52:08AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2015 10:30 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >> >On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>Patches are rebased
On 11/13/2015 11:32 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:52:08AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
>On 11/13/2015 10:30 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >>
> >>Patches are rebased now. I hope it will be ok now.
> >>
> >>Petr
> >Sorry, now my local CI
On 11/13/2015 12:27 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
+req_mem_ctx = talloc_new(test_ctx->tctx);
> >>+check_leaks_push(req_mem_ctx);
> >
> >I think the last question is whether we want to use this new context or
> >just call check_leaks_push(test_ctx) recursively. I don't really mind
> >too much,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 08:32:55AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> bump
Hi, patch 003 doesn't apply cleanly for me, can you rebase?
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
On 11/13/2015 10:09 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Hi, patch 003 doesn't apply cleanly for me, can you rebase?
Patches are rebased now. I hope it will be ok now.
Petr
>From 3e43417db9b66bdb44d60b5f186156c5ac26ad4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Petr Cech
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015
On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
Patches are rebased now. I hope it will be ok now.
Petr
Sorry, now my local CI tests failed... I will rebase it again.
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
On (13/11/15 11:32), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:52:08AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
>> On 11/13/2015 10:30 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
>> >On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Patches are rebased now. I hope it will be ok now.
>> >>
>> >>Petr
>> >Sorry, now my local CI
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:52:08AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 10:30 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >On 11/13/2015 10:27 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >>
> >>Patches are rebased now. I hope it will be ok now.
> >>
> >>Petr
> >Sorry, now my local CI tests failed... I will rebase it again.
>
> Well,
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:27:03PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > I have a different question. (i haven't read patches yet)
> > But I can see that check_leaks_push is called after sysdb_store_user.
> >
> > I would like to know why.
> > because we shout try to check leaks "caused" in this
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:45:00PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> >Otherwise ACK.
> Thanks.
>
> >
> >CI is still running..
>
> There is new patch set attached.
These patches look OK to me code-wise, waiting for CI results..
___
sssd-devel mailing list
bump
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
On 11/10/2015 08:29 AM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 11/05/2015 05:29 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
+void test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid(void **state)
+{
+struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx = NULL;
+TALLOC_CTX *req_mem_ctx = NULL;
+struct tevent_req *req = NULL;
+const char
On 11/10/2015 08:37 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (10/11/15 08:29), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 11/05/2015 05:29 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
+void test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid(void **state)
+{
+struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx = NULL;
+TALLOC_CTX *req_mem_ctx = NULL;
+struct
On 11/09/2015 04:28 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 05:29:25PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
>On 11/04/2015 11:11 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Sorry it took so long to get back to the review. I only have some minor
> >comments, see inline..
> >
> >Because the group patches
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 05:29:25PM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 11/04/2015 11:11 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Sorry it took so long to get back to the review. I only have some minor
> >comments, see inline..
> >
> >Because the group patches are more or less equivalent, I'll just comment
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 08:37:13AM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (10/11/15 08:29), Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 11/05/2015 05:29 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
> >>+void test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid(void **state)
> >>+{
> >>+struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx = NULL;
> >>+TALLOC_CTX
On (10/11/15 08:29), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
>
>On 11/05/2015 05:29 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
>>+void test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid(void **state)
>>+{
>>+struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx = NULL;
>>+TALLOC_CTX *req_mem_ctx = NULL;
>>+struct tevent_req *req = NULL;
>>+const char
On 11/05/2015 05:29 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
+void test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid(void **state)
+{
+struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx = NULL;
+TALLOC_CTX *req_mem_ctx = NULL;
+struct tevent_req *req = NULL;
+const char **group_names = NULL;
+const char **ldb_results =
On 11/04/2015 11:11 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Hi,
Sorry it took so long to get back to the review. I only have some minor
comments, see inline..
Because the group patches are more or less equivalent, I'll just comment
here. If you agree with the comments, please also change the group tests
and
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:42:20AM +0100, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 12:57 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >Thank you, I think your approach is correct. Your test essentially tests
> >that testuser2 was on the server but was removed, so only testuser1 is
> >returned.
> >
> >It's correct, but
On 10/27/2015 09:42 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
The removed tests were:
* users_by_filter_valid
* users_by_filter_multiple_domains_valid
* groups_by_filter_valid
* groups_by_filter_multiple_domains_valid
Hello,
another patch set is attached.
This patch set covers groups_by_filter_valid by
On 10/23/2015 12:57 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Thank you, I think your approach is correct. Your test essentially tests
that testuser2 was on the server but was removed, so only testuser1 is
returned.
It's correct, but because the interface is able to return more users, I
would prefer if we tested
On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is WiP attached. I removed some tests like this one some time ago.
> They fail really often and we decided that the test logic was corrupted. Now
> I am trying get it back to the codebase.
>
> There is some kind of cmocka
ping
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
Hi,
there is WiP attached. I removed some tests like this one some time ago.
They fail really often and we decided that the test logic was corrupted.
Now I am trying get it back to the codebase.
There is some kind of cmocka magic around data provider. I think it
creates test_user_1 during
There is previous commit to this ticket, so you can see what tests were
removed.
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/sssd.git/commit/?id=bdf422fde0fd6b40b3412bad3b200f8fd7ea8693
___
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
28 matches
Mail list logo