Patch to samba_dnsupdate to support net ads dns register in self-test

[Rowland Penny]

On 15/05/16 19:54, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Rowland Penny <repenny241155 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/05/16 19:22, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Rowland Penny <repenny241155 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 15/05/16 19:08, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Rowland Penny
>>>>> <repenny241155 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/05/16 18:41, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Attached is a surprisingly simple patch to add an NS record to the dns
>>>>>>> file produced for self test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is another small change that is required in the Samba4.pm file
>>>>>>> to use this that I could merge with this patch if people desire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, first lets discuss this patch to see if it is the correct way
>>>>>>> to do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Richard, before I make myself look a fool (well a bigger fool than I
>>>>>> already am ) by posting on list, is your patch doing the same as what
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> line would do in dns_update_list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ${IF_RWDNS_DOMAIN}NS ${DNSDOMAIN}
>>>>>> ${HOSTNAME}
>>>>> This is not a silly question at all, so I have added back
>>>>> samba-technical.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I do not know.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. I suspect that we do not want an NS record there, but if we do,
>>>>> they it would be a simpler way to achieve what I am trying to do.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>
>>>> from my testing, it does need to be there and I sent a patch to add it, I
>>>> then found that Andrew Bartlett has a similar patch with others he is
>>>> working on. Because of this, my patch went nowhere, I didn't mind because
>>>> at
>>>> that time Andrew was working on a bigger problem which hopefully would
>>>> have
>>>> meant the internal DNS server would make use of the NS record that a
>>>> secondary joined DC would add.
>>>>
>>>> This happened nearly six months ago and nothing has happened yet, if my
>>>> (or
>>>> Andrews similar) patch was added, each DC would have it is own SOA (like
>>>> a
>>>> Windows DC), but only if you use Bind9
>>> Ahhh, this is useful info.
>>>
>>> It seems that we need this for several reasons then :-)
>>>
>>> I don't care whose patch makes it in. I simply care that it gets in.
>>>
>> I agree with you, it needs to go in, but then we need to decide, does
>> somebody fix the DNS server or do we tell everybody with more than one DC to
>> use Bind9 ?
> OK, so we need to figure out how to handle all the requirements.
>
> That is, to be able to run these sorts of tests during self test, but
> also to allow real environments to work.
>
> In that case, for the sort-term, while we sort out the other issue,
> perhaps we can take the approach I have taken.
>

If I understand your patch correctly, the test is adding an ns record 
via samba_dnsupdate, much the same way as the script would do when 
'samba' is started, so in this case, to get your test working, I would 
go with your patch.

There is another side to this, if your test does work with your patch 
added, it then goes on to prove that either my patch (or Andrews) is needed.

Rowland