[SAMBA4] we should create just one test environment

[Jelmer Vernooij]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 12:59 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 11:39 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> we have already make testenv SELFTEST_TESTENV=member
>>>>
>>>> we can make that the default for make testenv...
>>> But then it doesn't match how we run the tests otherwise.  
>>>
>>> My point is that I don't want to have to constantly wonder:  what test
>>> environment did we declare for this test, what test environment did it
>>> get, and what is 'make testenv' giving me
>> We only have three different ones at the moment (none, dc, member) so it
>> should be easy to guess against which environment a test is being run.
>> Once we get more, it may be harder to keep track, but then provisioning
>> will be too expensive to set up all environments always anyway.h
> You keep saying that, and this seems to be the reason why we are doing
> this the current way.  But I really don't buy it - we are going to be
> doing a *lot* more tests against the member server, so we will almost
> always have to pay that setup price.
Maybe that is true for the member server, but what happens when we start
adding tests for trusted domains, nt4-style dcs or involving one or more
samba3 servers?

The setup price also doesn't have to be paid when you're just running dc
tests - of which we still have plenty.

> I also think that we can reduce that price.
How?

>>> I really just want one setup, and I don't mind the extra smbd or member
>>> server configuration if it ensures that all the tests run against a
>>> consistent set of servers.
>>> If we are only going to give the tests the environment they declare, are
>>> we going to start up/shut down environments between tests?
>> We do support doing that, though it is not the default. It can be very
>> useful in tracking down, for example, whether a test is corrupting one
>> of smbd's databases and thus is causing strange failures in subsequent
>> tests.
>>
>> At the moment, though, we set up environments on a when-needed basis and
>> close them all when selftest exits. 
> That's why I just want to set up a generally useful test environment
> once, and run with that.  It can list 'provides: dc, member', if that
> helps you keep track of what scripts require which parts, but I just
> want one test network...
I think we're just repeating ourselves here - I'm not a big fan of a
kitchensink test environment.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRjXQVAy0JeEGD2blAQJ6owP+MZKJLsyDs0cv8HLZFFj2r/oLTGTKF+zq
yHyMl3Kup0ou9elk0dcvirTLAY4W/mYnw5oUJh1E8Nc60bRonPuNpMkliY6qP/Nq
1j9PUKA8xs3WoJwqNTLq6Q7uh2qR786l464S8inxv5wSg3IIJqNjgf+MNwIvD8pL
reopkD67E28=
=D/B/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----