Please try to upgrade an alpha10 when enforcing new rules in samdb

[Matthieu Patou]

  On 10/08/2010 02:59, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 01:03 +0400, Matthieu Patou wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying hard to make one more time upgradeprovision work against all
>> the change that are introduced in the code of samba4.
>>
>> It would be just great if you could do a test with upgradeprovision
>> --full -s path_to_alpha10_smb.conf when you modify the samdb code (and
>> especially when you add more strict checks).
>> It will give you an idea that you are breaking upgradeprovision and that
>> maybe you can do things in a different way not to break it, and if it's
>> not possible then we can discuss ...
>>
>> In the particular case of this changeset I guess that the relax control
>> has to be used, any idea or remarks ?
> I guess that this is another case for relax.
>
I would rather be inclined to create a new control: 
upgradeprovisionrelax and use it so that we will relax things just for 
upgradeprovision.
Later on I guess I have to go in the code and search for part with just 
the relax control and see if it applies also to upgradeprovision.

So that we have a clear vision for which purpose the relax is asked.
> However, until we have an automated test for this, it will keep
> happening.
>
> I'm very happy to have a full provision stored in the tree, for exactly
> this kind of regression testing.  Please add samples from all the alpha
> versions that you can, and a test that tries to upgrade it.  That is the
> only way we will stop this pattern.
>
Yeah I thought many times at doing something like that, I wanted to make 
a clever thing but maybe i'll start with a dumb one !

> Andrew Bartlett


-- 
Matthieu Patou
Samba Team        http://samba.org