On (09/08/17 14:43), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>
>> On 8 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Fabiano Fidêncio <fiden...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> People,
>> 
>> There's a test, part of our internal CI, recurrently failing in the
>> past few weeks:
>> 
>> =================================== FAILURES 
>> ===================================
>> _____________________________ test_add_remove_user 
>> _____________________________
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>  File 
>> "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/ci/label/debian_testing/src/tests/intg/test_enumeration.py",
>> line 418, in test_add_remove_user
>>    ent.assert_passwd(ent.contains_only())
>>  File 
>> "/var/lib/jenkins/workspace/ci/label/debian_testing/src/tests/intg/ent.py",
>> line 345, in assert_passwd
>>    assert not d, d
>> AssertionError: list mismatch:
>> unexpected users found:
>> [{'dir': '/home/user',
>>  'gecos': '2001',
>>  'gid': 2000,
>>  'name': 'user',
>>  'passwd': '*',
>>  'shell': '/bin/bash',
>>  'uid': 2001}]
>> ==================== 1 failed, 226 passed in 976.19 seconds 
>> ====================
>> 
>> There's already an open issue for this case:
>> https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3463 in order to track the issue.
>> 
>> So, as the subject says, shall we officially stop pushing patches till
>> we have this issue solved?
>> 
>
>I personally think pushing your workaround patch (that essentially just 
>increases wait time) is good enough to unblock the development now and we 
>should keep making the fix cleaner at the same time.
>

Increasing timeout without explanation "why" is almost the same as disabling
test. I vote for disabling test rather then blindly increasing timeout.

>But in general I agree that a test that is consistently failing should be 
>inspected asap..
>
+1

And ASAP does not mean after two weeks :-)

LS
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

Reply via email to