On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:52:31PM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> On 08/03/2016 12:46 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> > On (03/08/16 12:34), Michal Židek wrote:
> > > Two nitpicks, see inline.
> > >
> > > On 07/22/2016 02:34 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +static errno_t add_to_missing_attrs (TALLOC_CTX * mem_ctx,
> > > > + struct sysdb_attrs *attrs,
> > > > + const char *ext_key,
> > > > + char ***_missing)
> > > ^
> > > Coding style. Remove the space between function name and "(".
> > > Do not forget to align the parameters after that.
> > >
> > > > +{
> > > > + bool is_present = false;
> > > > + size_t size = 0;
> > > > + size_t ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + for (int i = 0; i < attrs->num; i++) {
> > > > + if (strcmp(ext_key, attrs->a[i].name) == 0) {
> > > > + is_present = true;
> > > > + }
> > > > + size++;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (is_present == false) {
> > > > + ret = add_string_to_list(attrs, ext_key, _missing);
> > > > + if (ret != EOK) {
> > > > + goto fail;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = EOK;
> > > > +
> > > > +fail:
> > >
> > > Please change the label name to "done". According to
> > > our new coding style, the code that follows label "fail"
> > > is only executed when failure occurs. I know we do not
> > > follow this everywhere, but I would like to be consistent
> > > in new code.
> > >
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Other than that it looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Also it would be good to add a CI tests for this. I do
> > > not want to postpone this patch before release, so you can
> > > do it later as part of this ticket:
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/3119
> > >
> > > So either send a patch with CI test now or
> > > assign the above ticket to yourself and do it
> > > when there is more time.
> > >
> > There is not "either or" for this case :-)
> >
> > Our experience(e.g. #3045 and many others) in sssd is that
> > if test is not written together with fix then it will be very very difficult
> > to write it later.
> > e.g. There isn't time; there are tasks with higher priority ...
> >
> > That's the reason why test for this particular bug must be pushed together
> > with
> > the fix.
> >
> > We should consider ticket #3119 as an enhancement of our testing of
> > netgroups
> > and not as a replacement of testing of this bug.
> >
> > I hope we are all on the same page.
> >
> > LS
>
> Hi all,
>
> Michal, thanks for review. Lukas, yes, we are on the same page, I hope.
> Tests are important. I would like to write tests during rest of week.
I wrote that in the ticket Michal filed, but I don't see support for
netgroups in nss_wrapper. But I don't think it should be too difficult
to add..
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
