On 09/17/2015 11:06 AM, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 09/17/2015 10:32 AM, Petr Cech wrote:
Hi Pavel!
There is some code between my last end and this continuation. I was read
it and did't find anything wrong.
Hi Petr,
thank you for you review. New patches are attached. All comments from
the previous mail should be addressed.
+#define run_cache_req(ctx, send_fn, done_fn, dom, crp, lookup, expret)
do { \
+ TALLOC_CTX
*req_mem_ctx; \
+ struct tevent_req
*req; \
+ errno_t
ret; \
+
\
+ req_mem_ctx =
talloc_new(global_talloc_context); \
+
check_leaks_push(req_mem_ctx);
\
+
\
+ req = send_fn(req_mem_ctx, ctx->tctx->ev,
ctx->rctx, \
+ ctx->ncache, 10,
crp, \
+ (dom == NULL ? NULL : dom->name),
lookup); \
+
assert_non_null(req);
\
+ tevent_req_set_callback(req, done_fn,
ctx); \
+
\
+ ret =
test_ev_loop(ctx->tctx); \
+ assert_int_equal(ret,
expret); \
+
assert_true(check_leaks_pop(req_mem_ctx));
\
+
\
+
talloc_free(req_mem_ctx);
\
+} while (0)
This definition should be a function. I found that you use it like
I wanted to avoid writing types for send_fn and done_fn. I'll do it if
you want me to, but I think this is good enough for test.
# return run_cache_req(...) but it doesn't provide value.
It was there originally then I realized I don't have to return a value.
I forgot to switch errno_t with void in function definition though, thanks!
However, I did not find line "return run_cache_req...", so if it is
there somewhere, please tell me.
+
+static void run_user_by_name(struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx,
+ struct sss_domain_info *domain,
+ int cache_refresh_percent,
+ errno_t exp_ret)
+{
+ run_cache_req(test_ctx, cache_req_user_by_name_send,
+ cache_req_user_by_name_test_done, domain,
+ cache_refresh_percent, TEST_USER_NAME, exp_ret);
+}
+
+static errno_t run_user_by_upn(struct cache_req_test_ctx *test_ctx,
+ struct sss_domain_info *domain,
+ int cache_refresh_percent,
+ errno_t exp_ret)
+{
+ run_cache_req(test_ctx, cache_req_user_by_name_send,
+ cache_req_user_by_name_test_done, domain,
+ cache_refresh_percent, TEST_UPN, exp_ret);
+}
This function returns errno_t but run_cache_req is
without return statement.
I tried with your patches
# make responder_cache_req-tests
and thre is a result:
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c: In function
‘run_user_by_upn’:
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:199:1: warning: no return
statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
}
^
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c: In function
‘run_user_by_id’:
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:209:1: warning: no return
statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
}
^
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c: In function
‘run_group_by_name’:
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:261:1: warning: no return
statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
}
^
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c: In function
‘run_group_by_id’:
src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:271:1: warning: no return
statement in function returning non-void [-Wreturn-type]
}
See above.
That's all for me. I didn't test the functionality. Please, ask someone
other who has skills with AD (and running instance of it) to test it.
Regards
Petr
Bump.
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
