Trying again at using the python samba_kcc
douglas.bagnall at catalyst.net.nz
Tue May 12 23:28:06 MDT 2015
On 18/04/15 01:46, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:57:23PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 21:44 +1200, Douglas Bagnall wrote:
>>> On 17/04/15 01:06, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>>> * samba.ldif_utils seems misnamed - it seems like it's more samba.samdb.ldif_utils?
>>> Right. I'll look at that next week.
>> I'm thinking that the KCC object belongs in samba.kcc, then we have
>> samba.kcc.utils and samba.kcc.ldif_import_export (which is what the
>> ldif_utils is for, it looks generic but really isn't).
> Yes. That would also make unit testing the various parts of it much
We have restructured the code in this way, with a smallish samba_kcc
script and modules in samba.kcc.*. There are unit tests for all the
modules, though they are far from comprehensive.
One unfortunate affect of this rearrangement is that `git blame` and
friends get confused and tend not to look back beyond the move.
Another is that it makes it hard to address one of Andreas's
complaints -- that of documentation strings being introduced in a
later commit than the function that they document. It is difficult to
push the docstring patches back across the rename barrier.
More information about the samba-technical