Btw, about a patch https://code.launchpad.net/~ahasenack/ubuntu/+source/sssd/+git/sssd/+merge/463721/+preview-diff/1051133/+files/preview.diff that I've found browsing links list:
wouldn't it be better to use `SPRItime` (defined in 'util/sss_format.h') instead of replacing `%lu` with `%lld`? And I think you could upstream this. On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:24 PM Alexey Tikhonov <atikh...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:26 PM Andreas Hasenack <andr...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm troubleshooting a set of test failures[1][2] in sssd 2.9.2 and > > 2.9.4. They are only failing in armhf, so the usual culprits are > > 32bits, slowness of the arch/infrastructure, and now we also have a > > time_t change[3] to a 64bit type. > > + unaligned mem access, but hardly the case here. > > > I don't know yet which, if any, are > > related to the failures. > > > > The current failures are: > > > > [ RUN ] test_user_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ ERROR ] --- 0x2 != 0x1 > > [ LINE ] --- ../src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:2505: > > error: Failure! > > [ FAILED ] test_user_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ RUN ] test_users_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ OK ] test_users_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ RUN ] test_group_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ ERROR ] --- 0x2 != 0x1 > > [ LINE ] --- ../src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:2868: > > error: Failure! > > [ FAILED ] test_group_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ RUN ] test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ OK ] test_groups_by_recent_filter_valid > > [ RUN ] test_users_by_filter_filter_old > > [ ERROR ] --- 0x2 != 0x1 > > [ LINE ] --- ../src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c:2613: > > error: Failure! > > [ FAILED ] test_users_by_filter_filter_old > > > > And > > > > [ ERROR ] --- No entries for symbol sss_dp_get_account_recv. > > ../src/tests/cmocka/common_mock_resp_dp.c:52: error: Could not get > > value to mock function sss_dp_get_account_recv > > ../src/tests/cmocka/test_pam_srv.c:802: note: Previously returned mock > > value was declared here > > > > [ FAILED ] test_pam_preauth_expired_crl_file > > ... > > [ ERROR ] --- No entries for symbol sss_dp_get_account_recv. > > ../src/tests/cmocka/common_mock_resp_dp.c:52: error: Could not get > > value to mock function sss_dp_get_account_recv > > ../src/tests/cmocka/test_pam_srv.c:802: note: Previously returned mock > > value was declared here > > > > [ FAILED ] test_pam_preauth_crl_another_ca_crl_invalid_files > > [ RUN ] test_pam_preauth_crl_invalid_crl_another_ca_files > > [ ERROR ] --- No entries for symbol sss_dp_get_account_recv. > > ../src/tests/cmocka/common_mock_resp_dp.c:52: error: Could not get > > value to mock function sss_dp_get_account_recv > > ../src/tests/cmocka/test_pam_srv.c:802: note: Previously returned mock > > value was declared here > > > > [ FAILED ] test_pam_preauth_crl_invalid_crl_another_ca_files > > > > At first, I've been trying to understand > > test_user_by_recent_filter_valid()[4], and it seems to be the reason > > for all 3 failures in that test group. > > > > The failure is that it expects just one user to be returned, but in > > the end there are two. > > I would print the content of `test_ctx->result` at this point just to > debug / see what's there... > > > The test seems to prepare two users, > > Why? > ``` > test_ctx->create_user1 = true; > test_ctx->create_user2 = false; > ``` > > > but in the > > end only one should be returned by the filter. I have not yet > > understood what is being expected here. What's "recent" in this > > context? Is it related to the "one second ago" (time(NULL) -1) in > > prepare_user()? > > > > > > > > 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sssd/+bug/2058576 > > 2. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068063 > > 3. https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time > > 4. > > https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/blob/1c2aa825062dcf2da2e886c3211be90c22db1750/src/tests/cmocka/test_responder_cache_req.c#L2467 > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: > > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org > > Do not reply to spam, report it: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
