On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:58:32AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
> On (31/08/15 12:31), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 03:16:57PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>> On (19/08/15 23:38), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>>>> as we're stabilizing the 1.13 branch and before we plan what we want
>>>> work on during the 1.14 development, we should use that time to write
>>>> some more tests!
>>>> Here are some areas where we could add tests. Please discuss or add your
>>>> ideas, I would like to turn this list into tickets we can start
>>>> * Extend the LDAP provider tests with more dynamic test cases.
>>>> - add a user to a group, run sss_cache, assert id user displays the
>>>> new group and getent group displays the new member
>>>> - conversely with removing users from groups
> There are some tests on list, but still it wuld be good to se a test plan.
>>>> * Background refresh
>>>> - could be built atop the LDAP NSS tests as well. I think we have
>>>> all the infrastructure in place.
>>>> * Local overrides integration test:
>>>> - this could be relatively easy, just call the overrides tool and
>>>> request the entry. Could be built atop the existing LDAP tests
>>>> or even use the local provider.
>>> Firstly, we need to prepare test cases for this feature.
>>> We can inspire in downstream ipa-views test case.
>>> After review of test cases we can split it to several tickets.
>> We already do:
>> It 'just' needs an assignee..
> IMHo this should be a very low priority ticket. It's already tested by
> downstream and they will have automated tests. We should focus to other parts
> which cannot be easily tested (whithout greping log files or touching/checking
> internals in sysdb)
Yes, if Pavel didn't start on #2732 yet, then we can move it down, I
agree PAM responder tests have bigger priority (also in Trac:
major > minor), but..
> BTW if the tests were ready together with feature it would be something
> different. It would not be a duplicated effort.
> If we really want to duplicate effort then it would be better to see/review
> a test plan for local views.
..it's not completely useless though, we will refactor sssd_nss in 1.14,
so we should have tests for views as well.
> Transforming to pytest should be a trivial task.
> Should I file a ticket?
I'm not sure I understand? From the start I thought localviews tests
would be in pytest, running tools and then getent..
Yes, that's how the test are. I'll send the first version on list today. I just
need to resolve some final glitches.