On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Lukas Slebodnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> On (12/07/16 14:08), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Lukas Slebodnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On (12/07/16 13:57), Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>>>>Comments are in-line.
>>>>
>>>>The test directory was not removed (tp_test_utils-test_utils)
>>>>because it contain the snippet for krb5_libdefaults.
>>>>---
>>>> src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c b/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c
>>>>index 
>>>>fd20990ce7ac632b3b62bf84a20cc75a5ec0e968..b08b19708bb59a076a79805fa37a15924152b8e2
>>>>100644
>>>>--- a/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c
>>>>+++ b/src/tests/cmocka/test_utils.c
>>>>@@ -1252,6 +1252,7 @@ void test_sss_write_krb5_conf_snippet(void **state)
>>>>     char *cwd;
>>>>     char *path;
>>>>     char *file;
>>>>+    char *file_krb5_libdefaults;
>>>>
>>>>     ret = sss_write_krb5_conf_snippet(NULL, false);
>>>>     assert_int_equal(ret, EINVAL);
>>>>@@ -1274,6 +1275,10 @@ void test_sss_write_krb5_conf_snippet(void **state)
>>>>     ret = asprintf(&file, "%s/%s/localauth_plugin", cwd, TESTS_PATH);
>>>>     assert_true(ret > 0);
>>>>
>>>>I know it's not part of your change and I know it's just in the test
>>>>suite, but by doing the assert here you're leaking the path.
>>>>
>>>>+    ret = asprintf(&file_krb5_libdefaults,
>>>>+                   "%s/%s/krb5_libdefaults", cwd, TESTS_PATH);
>>>>+    assert_true(ret > 0);
>>>>+
>>>>
>>>>Leaking path and file here.
>>>>
>>>>     ret = sss_write_krb5_conf_snippet(path, true);
>>>>     assert_int_equal(ret, EOK);
>>>>
>>>>@@ -1286,7 +1291,11 @@ void test_sss_write_krb5_conf_snippet(void **state)
>>>>     assert_int_equal(ret, EOK);
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>>+    ret = unlink(file_krb5_libdefaults);
>>>>+    assert_int_equal(ret, EOK);
>>>>
>>>>Leaking the path, file and file_krb6_libdefaults here..
>>>>
>>> We do not leak memory if test passes
>>
>>Yep, the leaks can happen only in case of failure.
>>
>>> and we have a requirement that unit test have to pass with each commit.
>>>
>>> We could write a setup and teardown to get rid of potential leaks
>>> in case of failure. But IMHO it does not worth it.
>>
>>Indeed!
> Does it mean ACK?

Yes, it does.
Sorry for not being explicit. I will be, next time.

Best Regards,
-- 
Fabiano Fidêncio
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/[email protected]

Reply via email to