[SAMBA4] we should create just one test environment
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
metze at samba.org
Mon Apr 30 09:39:05 GMT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jelmer Vernooij schrieb:
> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 11:04 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 10:22 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>>>>>> Also, the current code makes it very easy to add support for other
>>>>>>> targets (Samba3, for example) that don't support all test environments
>>>>>>> Perhaps you would simply like to make sure that all test environments
>>>>>>> are set up in 'make testenv' ?
>>>>>> No, then the tests will constantly differ from the environment in which
>>>>>> they are normally run, even worse than the current situation.
>>>>> In that case, why not add an ENV= variable so you can run "make testenv
>>>>> ENV=member" ? Or perhaps we can simply add "make testenv-dc" and "make
>>>>> We can print out the environment name for failed tests, if that would help.
>>>> I just think it's getting too complex. It used to be very simple, and
>>>> it isn't any more.
>>> The only added complexity would be that there isn't just 'testenv' but
>>> 'testenv-dc' and 'testenv-member', and there is just one test that uses
>>> the latter at the moment. That makes it a little bit more complex, but
>>> the alternative is a complex test environment.
>> I would prefer a more complex, but realistic test environment that is
>> static, for most configurations. That way, I know where things are, and
>> can easily aim tests (including ad-hoc tests/debugging in 'make
>> testenv') at whatever parts I need.
> What is more realistic about such a test environment? It's just more
> complex than the current test environments and can make debugging harder
> as there are more factors involved than can cause problems.
> Things will still be where they are. I just don't see why you would be
> interested in $RANDOM-DOMAIN-MEMBER when you're running a couple of SAMR
> tests against a DC.
>>>>>> I'm afraid that the selftest setup is becoming too complex to reproduce
>>>>>> - I want to be able to easily reproduce any failure in 'make
>>>>>> testenv' (which you will recall is my primary work tool), without first
>>>>>> wondering 'oh, what environment did it declare, what environment did it
>>>>>> get, and what environment do I have now'.
>>>>> That will make other things more complex. For example, we'd need to
>>>>> change the environment variables to be $DC1_IP, $DC1_USERNAME,
>>>>> $DC2_PASSWORD, etc because the tests can be run against either of the
>>>>> dcs or domain member.
>>>> Well, the first point is that DC1 and DC2 *should* be sharing the same
>>>> username and passwords. The member server will have additional local
>>>> users (to verify the local SAM), but the whole point of a member server
>>>> is to use the same passwords...
>>> Well, I was thinking of the case where two DCs were in different domains
>>> but had a trust between them. So, in the case of two dc's in the same
>>> domain, you would have a $DC_USERNAME and $DC_PASSWORD but also
>>> passwords and ips for various member servers.
>> If the cost is a few environment variables, that's a reasonable cost.
> My point is, that is also complexity. Not much, but the same thing could
> be said for multiple test environments.
>> I'm quite happy for tests to declare what environments they need, but
>> for the moment, I would really like all those environments to be
> Like you use 'make testenv', I use "make test TESTS=<NAME>" all the
> time. It's very annoying if I have to wait not 10 but 20 or even 30
> seconds for provisioning to finish.
> I don't mind 'make testenv' setting up more than one environment so you
> can do more ad-hoc testing/debugging. Or perhaps having 'make testenv'
> set up all environments, while 'make testenv-dc' or 'make
> testenv-member' set up just one.
we have already make testenv SELFTEST_TESTENV=member
we can make that the default for make testenv...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the samba-technical