On (27/10/15 22:35), Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >On (27/10/15 17:57), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:06:36PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >>> > On (21/10/15 09:20), Sumit Bose wrote: >>> > >On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:15:06PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>> > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 05:17:49PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote: >>> > >> > Hi Jakub, >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On 10/19/2015 09:43 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >>> > >> > >I'm working on pam_sss.so tests[1] and I ran into a problem that I >>> > >> > >don't >>> > >> > >know how to solve best. >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >tl;dr, I would like to set different environment variables for >>> > >> > >different >>> > >> > >tests in order to set up cwrap libraries differently per-test. >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >I can't use setenv() in the test itself, because that's too late, I >>> > >> > >need >>> > >> > >the variables to be set when __attribute__(constructor) is run, so >>> > >> > >normally >>> > >> > >at program startup, when the libraries are loaded. >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >With cmake it's easy, use set(TEST_ENVIRONMENT). But with >>> > >> > >autotools, I >>> > >> > >only found two ways: >>> > >> > > - TESTS_ENVIRONMENT - this is fine, but it's per Makefile.am. >>> > >> > > So I >>> > >> > > would have to split the tests more, into pam_wrapper tests >>> > >> > > that also >>> > >> > > require uid_wrapper, tests that only require pam_wrapper, ... >>> > >> > > - LOG_COMPILER - this allows to run a wrapper script before a >>> > >> > > test >>> > >> > > that receives the test name as argv. So this is pretty much >>> > >> > > what I >>> > >> > > want except this is a feature new to automake 1.12, which >>> > >> > > would >>> > >> > > rule out both RHEL-6 and Ubuntu Trusty (which is used by >>> > >> > > Travis) >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >So I'm really leaning towards creating a >>> > >> > >src/tests/cwrap/pwrap/Makefile.am >>> > >> > >and src/tests/cwrap/pwrap_root/Makefile.am. The downside of multiple >>> > >> > >Makefile.am files is that there is some code duplication and the >>> > >> > >build >>> > >> > >takes longer. But I still think there is enough interest (from us >>> > >> > >and from >>> > >> > >our users) to support git master on old platforms. I can file a >>> > >> > >ticket to >>> > >> > >remove this and use LOG_COMPILER when we drop support for RHEL-6 >>> > >> > >and old >>> > >> > >Ubuntu versions... >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > >If you disagree, please reply, otherwise I'm going to send a patch >>> > >> > >with >>> > >> > >per-test Makefile... >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Ah, so these are unit tests, not integration tests? >>> > >> >>> > >> I'm working on both, actually. The first part is more or less an >>> > >> isolated unit test of all the options that pam_sss supports. The reason >>> > >> is that some options (2FA, smart cards, ...) are not really easily >>> > >> testable without a mock back end, at the moment we only have openldap >>> > >> in >>> > >> the integration tests. >>> > >> >>> > >> The next step I will start right after I finish this part is >>> > >> integration >>> > >> tests that will exercise LDAP authentication, password change and maybe >>> > >> authorisation if there's time left. >>> > >> >>> > >> > >>> > >> > I'm not sure I understood everything right, sorry, but perhaps you >>> > >> > can find >>> > >> > something useful in contrib/ci/run, contrib/ci/make-check-wrap and >>> > >> > contrib/ci/valgrind-condense where CI matches and handles particular >>> > >> > tests >>> > >> > differently regardless of whether LOG_COMPILER is supported or not. >>> > >> > Ping me >>> > >> > if you need help figuring out what's going on there. >>> > >> >>> > >> So more or less I wanted to have two tests and wanted to run the first >>> > >> as (simplified): >>> > >> PAM_WRAPPER=1 ./src/tests/cwrap/pam_sss_wrapper-tests >>> > >> and other as: >>> > >> PAM_WRAPPER=1 UID_WRAPPER=1 >>> > >> ./src/tests/cwrap/pam_sss_wrapper-root--tests >>> > >> >>> > >> but it occured to me that I can always start with UID wrapper, just >>> > >> drop >>> > >> privileges if I need a strictly non-root test. It's a bit of a hack :-) >>> > >> but since the root is fake anyway, I think it's acceptable. >>> > >> >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Granted this is from outside the build, but maybe you can concoct >>> > >> > something >>> > >> > from inside as well. >>> > >> >>> > >> I think this might work as well; thank you! >>> > > >>> > >I had a short look at libtool. Since we use it during 'make check' not >>> > >the actual binaries are called but a libtool generated wrapper script. >>> > >If it would be possible to set the environment variables here they would >>> > >be visible for the binary at startup. >>> > > >>> > >Libtool has the concept of 'executable wrappers' to support cygwin and >>> > >similar environments but I didn't found an easy way to add own wrapper >>> > >here. >>> > > >>> > >Adding the variables directly in the generated wrapper scripts would be >>> > >quite a hack. But maybe it would be possible if we add our own version >>> > >of build/ltmain.sh where the wrapper scripts are generated in >>> > >func_emit_wrapper()? >>> > > >>> > >So, I'm afraid this is not a direct answer to your question but maybe >>> > >libtool might be useful here. >>> > > >>> > >>> > I read this thread after are came up with almost similar solution >>> > as Sumit. With a small difference. I did not decide to inject env >>> > variables to generated script but I decided to write yet another >>> > wrapper on top of and set env variable there. >>> > >>> > Here is a POC version. What do you think about such solution. >>> > >>> > LS >>> >>> > From 79e8f0e1cdd09ca791755bb03c1e8f38b8078dc3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> > From: Lukas Slebodnik <lsleb...@redhat.com> >>> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:06:00 +0200 >>> > Subject: [PATCH] temp >>> >>> Thank you, this works like a charm! >>> >>> ACK (but I had to apply with patch(1) in my pwrap branch, not sure if >>> the patch is applicable atop master...) >> >>Oh and of course please come up with a better commit message :-) >> >It was a "POC version" therefore such commit message. >I think tham make distcheck would not pass with my patch. > >>if you prefer, I can resend along with the pam_wrapper patches... >go ahead > I was expecting that pam_wrapper patches will lend sooner. Do you have a solution with env in WIP patches? or should we do it before pam tests?
I just wnat to know what to do with this mail thread in patchwork. LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
