On 10/02/2015 03:34 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/02/2015 07:44 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (01/10/15 15:41), Michal Židek wrote:
On 10/01/2015 03:08 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (01/10/15 13:56), Michal Židek wrote:
On 09/16/2015 03:56 PM, Michal Židek wrote:
On 09/15/2015 04:03 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 03:53:41PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
On 09/14/2015 05:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Michal Židek wrote:
Hi,
patch for ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
is in the attachment.
Thanks.
Michal
From 7c454bc2a737be05068418a5eef7fe9446bb5fa8 Mon Sep 17
00:00:00
2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Michal=20=C5=BDidek?= <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:37:48 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] util: Include disabled domains in
link_forest_roots
Ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2673
---
src/db/sysdb_subdomains.c | 6 +++---
src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c | 3 +++
src/util/domain_info_utils.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
src/util/util.h | 3 +++
4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
The patch looks good but whenever I see us adding more and more
boolean
switches, I wonder if we should just use flags instead?
This:
get_next_domain_ex(d, GND_USE_DISABLED | GND_DESCEND);
Reads quite a bit easier to me than:
get_next_domain_ex(d, true, false);
Also, bonus point are acquired next time we add a new flag,
because not
all callers of the function must be converted..
What do you think?
I think this is very good point. It will also give us implicit
boolean parameter value (if not set, it is automatically false)
which improves readability a lot. I wander if it is good to add
the _ex function in this case. Would you agree if I changed the
original get_next_domain to use flags? I know, it needs to be
changed
on more places, but I think such small refactoring makes more
sence than adding _ex function with flags.
Or is this what you were saying? I am not sure because
you used the _ex function in your example of "nice"
usage.
If we have a test for different usages of the flag-based
function, then
I guess it would be better than keeping the existing get_next_domain
function.
We can also split master from sssd-1-13 already..
btw the flag names were completely pulled out of thin air, feel
free to
suggest better ones.
I split the refactoring of get_next_domain to separate patch.
The second patch is just one liner that switches on the
disabled domains in link_forest_roots.
Michal
____ _ _ __ __ ____
__/\_| __ )| | | | \/ | _ \__/\__
\ / _ \| | | | |\/| | |_) \ /
/_ _\ |_) | |_| | | | | __//_ _\
\/ |____/ \___/|_| |_|_| \/
(low priority, just keeping the thread alive :) )
Would you mind to write unit tests for get_next_domain?
LS
It does have unit tests.
Let me rephrase your answer.
The tests has beed changed.
But new functionality is not test.
There is a change in test_utils.s
- dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list, true);
+ dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list, SSS_GND_DESCEND);
assert_null(dom);
+
+ dom = get_next_domain(test_ctx->dom_list,
+ SSS_GND_DESCEND | SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED);
+ assert_non_null(dom);
But assert_non_null cannot be considered as a valid test for new feature.
So would you mind to extend tests for SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED?
It ould be god to se what happed if SSS_GND_INCLUDE_DISABLED is used
without
the flag SSS_GND_DESCEND. Or which domain will be returned in
different cases.
You should consider a new unit test as an additional documentation.
So if new developer will not be sure hot to use it it will be obvious
from
unit test. This is a reason why it might be better to write separate
test for new feature in separate patch. Because the current patch
mostly convert old code to the new style 's/true/SSS_GND_DESCEND/'
's/false/0/'
(In most cases, I prefer unit test to be part of new small features but
sometimes it's better to write unit test in separate patch.
LS
Ok. I removed the test changes from the first patch and added
enhanced tests in the new patch.
Michal
bump
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
