Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create test program for krb5_child and ldap_child #2169

Closed
sssd-bot opened this issue May 2, 2020 · 0 comments
Closed

Create test program for krb5_child and ldap_child #2169

sssd-bot opened this issue May 2, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

@sssd-bot
Copy link

sssd-bot commented May 2, 2020

Cloned from Pagure issue: https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/1127

  • Created at 2012-01-03 15:54:59 by sgallagh
  • Closed at 2020-03-24 14:21:45 as wontfix
  • Assigned to nobody

Currently, it's difficult to debug the krb5_child and ldap_child processes, as they are forked from the sssd_be process.

It would be a good idea for long-term maintenance if we wrote a simulator that could invoke these children directly and pass sample input to the child.

Comments


Comment from dpal at 2012-01-05 15:56:16

Fields changed

milestone: NEEDS_TRIAGE => SSSD 1.9.0 NEEDS_TRIAGE


Comment from dpal at 2012-01-16 17:00:21

Fields changed

milestone: SSSD 1.9.0 NEEDS_TRIAGE => SSSD Kerberos improvements


Comment from dpal at 2012-02-10 23:43:51

Fields changed

rhbz: => 0


Comment from jhrozek at 2012-06-13 15:59:03

Fields changed

feature_milestone: =>
owner: somebody => jhrozek
patch: 0 => 1
status: new => assigned


Comment from dpal at 2012-08-16 23:35:17

Fields changed

proposed_priority: => Nice to have


Comment from jhrozek at 2012-08-17 11:28:58

Note that I implemented a test program for the krb5_child when I was developing the dircache feature.

It needs extending and there is no ldap_child test program.


Comment from dpal at 2012-09-04 23:20:31

Moving all the features planned for 1.10 release into 1.10 beta.

milestone: SSSD Kerberos Improvements Feature => SSSD 1.10 beta


Comment from dpal at 2012-09-04 23:50:13

Fields changed

priority: major => minor


Comment from dpal at 2012-12-20 23:33:42

Fields changed

selected: => Not need


Comment from dpal at 2013-01-02 15:32:08

Moving tickets that are not a priority for SSSD 1.10 into the next release.

milestone: SSSD 1.10 beta => SSSD 1.11 beta


Comment from dpal at 2013-07-30 12:16:54

Fields changed

changelog: =>
design: =>
design_review: => 0
fedora_test_page: =>
milestone: SSSD 1.13 beta => Interim Bucket
priority: minor => major
review: => 0


Comment from dpal at 2013-07-30 12:54:43

Fields changed

milestone: Interim Bucket => SSSD 1.12 beta


Comment from jhrozek at 2014-05-28 15:23:20

The scope is to implement an ldap_child test program, krb5_child test already exists. Since we don't plan any changes to the ldap_child, I think we can push this one out.

review: 0 => 1


Comment from jhrozek at 2014-05-30 16:01:01

Fields changed

milestone: SSSD 1.12 beta => SSSD 1.14 beta


Comment from jhrozek at 2016-02-16 14:05:25

We ended up implementing full integration tests which serve a very similar purpose, albeit less programmable maybe.

mark: => 0
milestone: SSSD 1.14 beta => SSSD 1.15 beta
sensitive: => 0


Comment from jhrozek at 2016-11-25 10:28:50

Since we have integration tests, I think it's fine to defer this one.

selected: Not need => May


Comment from jhrozek at 2016-12-05 15:40:10

Most of the functionality would be covered by integration tests. Some corner cases might still be nice to be tested with unit tests, but I think this ticket can safely be deferred.

milestone: SSSD Future releases (no date set yet) => SSSD Patches welcome


Comment from sgallagh at 2017-02-24 14:30:10

Metadata Update from @sgallagh:

  • Issue assigned to jhrozek
  • Issue set to the milestone: SSSD Patches welcome

Comment from jhrozek at 2019-08-28 15:40:53

Metadata Update from @jhrozek:

  • Assignee reset

Comment from pbrezina at 2020-03-24 14:21:44

Thank you for taking time to submit this request for SSSD. Unfortunately this issue was not given priority and the team lacks the capacity to work on it at this time.

Given that we are unable to fulfill this request I am closing the issue as wontfix.

If the issue still persist on recent SSSD you can request re-consideration of this decision by reopening this issue. Please provide additional technical details about its importance to you.

Thank you for understanding.


Comment from pbrezina at 2020-03-24 14:21:45

Metadata Update from @pbrezina:

  • Issue close_status updated to: wontfix
  • Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant