samba3 and samba4 targets in smbtorture

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 15:44 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:15:15AM +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > For a start, I pushed the first two patches to autobuild.
> 
> Thanks !
> 
> The question I'd like to discuss is that now we have
> a unified file server, we really should remove the
> distinctions saying :
> 
> if (torture_setting_bool(tctx, "samba4", false)) and
> if (torture_setting_bool(tctx, "samba3", false))
> 
> and make the tests pass by using:
> 
> if (torture_setting_bool(tctx, "samba_smbd", false))
> and
> if (torture_setting_bool(tctx, "samba_ntfs", false))
> 
> to differentiate the tests against the smbd and ntvfs
> fileserver code.

When Tridge and I started on the s3fs proposal a year ago, this was one
of the biggest stumbling blocks.  It still is the reason that the
(incredibly poorly named) plugin_s4_dc environment does not run nearly
as many tests as dc or s3dc.  

The problem is, splitting apart this between exceptions on the RPC
server and on the SMB server got overwhelming quickly, and so instead I
turned to creating a new environment and only running (some) 'samba3'
tests on it.  This allowed us to make tested forward progress, but put
off this larger task until later.  

As you have noticed, it still needs to be done.

Indeed, I really do wish we had less of these, and instead used
knownfail entries or just had a single 'right way to do things'.  We
even have the ridiculous situation where tests just do different things
based on the passed in target - like the rpc.samba.large-dc test, which
does not delete users if the target is samba3. 

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org