On (05/11/15 09:50), Pavel Reichl wrote: > > >On 11/05/2015 08:59 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>On (04/11/15 18:58), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>> >>> >>>On 11/04/2015 06:41 PM, Sumit Bose wrote: >>>>On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:00:34PM +0100, Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On 11/04/2015 03:02 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>>>>>On (04/11/15 14:40), Pavel Reichl wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Also one of few not yet tested corners of pam_reply() - 'Printing account >>>>>>>expiration warning for sshd' requires pam_service to be sshd, but I can >>>>>>>change when I will write another test (it might happen soon as pcech is >>>>>>>working on similar change in adjacent code). >>>>>>> >>>>>>That's exactly the reason why the default value should not be sshd. >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand why this would be the reason can you elaborate? >>>> >>>>Because a default value should not lead to a code path which handles a >>>>special case. The general PAM responder test should not run through the >>>>'sshd' case in pam_reply() only if the service is set explicitly to >>>>'sshd' this features should be tests. >>> >>>Sure, but just setting sshd would not lead to execution of this branch AFAIK >>>at least pam verbosity would be needed to be set. As said before service >>>value doesn't matter in current test so IMO this patch would only set service >>>to more sane default however I agree with you that 'generic service name' is >>>not a bad idea at all. >>> >>We spent enormous time with such unimportant patch. >> >>I pushed patch with Sumit's propsal "pam_test_service" >>using one-liner rule. > >So this rule really allows you to: > >1) amend patch yourself, >2) change authorship of the patch, Sumit proposed "pam_test_service" so he is author.
>3) ack the patch yourself, yes >4) push the patch yourself, yes But only for oneliners LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
