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

ipatests: unresolvable nested netgroups #196

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

apophys
Copy link
Contributor

@apophys apophys commented Oct 27, 2016

Adds a test case for issue in SSSD that manifested in
an inability to resolve nested membership in netgroups

The test case tests for direct and indirect membership.

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/6439

Adds a test case for issue in SSSD that manifested in
an inability to resolve nested membership in netgroups

The test case tests for direct and indirect membership.

https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/6439
@apophys
Copy link
Contributor Author

apophys commented Nov 10, 2016

Ping for review.

@martbab martbab self-assigned this Nov 10, 2016
@martbab
Copy link
Contributor

martbab commented Nov 11, 2016

Is there any particular reason why this is among XML RPC tests and not a separate integration test? IMHO it should be a CI test as it tests integration with SSSD. I get that it is easier to re-use existing fixtures but this is clearly out of scope of XML RPC test suites.

@alichbox
Copy link

Hello, Martin,
I got your point about bigger suite that should be definitely an integration module. For smaller parts we use singlehost test (XMLRPC) because they are faster and resource friendly.
I suggest to keep this test as it is (XMLRPC) and file a new issue - RFE for test coverage.

@martbab
Copy link
Contributor

martbab commented Nov 21, 2016

I am strongly opposed to keeping this particular test in XMLRPC suite since it actually does not test any XMLRPC calls but is, in fact, an integration test for SSSD netgroup resolution so the semantics do not match for me.

Arguments about speed and resource-friendliness do not seem to be blocker for this since you have to provision and install IPA server anyway to run our out-of-tree-tests, you just have another machine that needs to act as a controller but this one is much easier to setup that the slave itself.

@martbab
Copy link
Contributor

martbab commented Dec 12, 2016

Any update on this PR?

@apophys
Copy link
Contributor Author

apophys commented Dec 12, 2016

The rewrite to integration test is in my queue.

@martbab
Copy link
Contributor

martbab commented Jan 24, 2017

Since the re-implementation of this test suite is done by @celestian in #409 can I close this PR?

@apophys
Copy link
Contributor Author

apophys commented Jan 24, 2017

Yes.

@apophys apophys closed this Jan 24, 2017
@MartinBasti MartinBasti added the rejected Pull Request has been rejected label Jan 24, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rejected Pull Request has been rejected
Projects
None yet
4 participants