s4member environment and 'useless' tests

[Michael Adam]

On 2017-01-11 at 08:12 +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 11:28:49 CET Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 21:55 +0000, Rowland Penny wrote:
> > > Yes. Openchange seems to have died, so you are proposing to keep test
> > > code around for a dead project, just in case it re-animates itself ?
> > 
> > For now, yes.  It isn't a large burden.
> > 
> > > Also, just in case you haven't noticed, I am only proposing removing
> > > test code, I haven't proposed removing any 'C' code, just python &
> > > perl.
> > 
> > My point exactly.  We should not remove the tests for which there is
> > code.  I don't feel like removing that code just yet, but I am happy if
> > we consolidate the test environments.
> > 
> > > > It also tests, alongside rpc_proxy, the python domain-join code (an
> > > > alternative to the C based code in 'net').
> > > 
> > > Then the test needs to be pointed at an AD DC joined to a test
> > > domain,
> > > this is what we need to be sure works.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean here.  s4member and rpc_proxy are pointed at
> > an AD DC.
> > 
> > > > I would be much more convinced if the tests of this environment
> > > > were
> > > > blocking code development, or they take a long time, but removing
> > > > them
> > > > *because they found an actual bug* seems a bit strange.
> > > 
> > > The problem, as far as a understood it, was that a test against
> > > 's4member' was failing, I asked why we were doing this and Michael
> > > Adam said 'Agreed. Let's remove it...' , so I created the patches.
> > 
> > Removing a failing test because it is failing, without understanding
> > why it failed and why that change is acceptable is just sweeping the
> > issue under the carpet.
> > 
> > > > I am happy if s4member and rpc_proxy are combined, but given the
> > > > changes I did in da3a79831afbd1b85592be36eb47de375e575643 to make
> > > > it
> > > > work, I'm not sure if the two are compatible.
> > > > 
> > > > Andrew Bartlett
> > > 
> > > Can I be blunt, just what do you have against removing old, no longer
> > > really useful code ? Tests should be relevant, even if it means
> > > writing
> > > new tests. 
> > 
> > You and I have different ideas of old, and no longer really useful.
> > That seems to be the base of our disagreement.  
> > 
> > That isn't entirely un-reasonable: your primary work is with our users,
> > and we steer our users clear of some areas of the codebase.  That is
> > important actually, because allows those of us doing development the
> > latitude to remove those things without pain in the future.
> > 
> > I doubt this resolves our disagreement, but I hope it clarifies things
> > a little.
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> if you run the tests manually you can clearly see that something is wrong with 
> our build environment.
> 
> make -j test TESTS="samba.blackbox.wbinfo.s4member"
> 
> FAILED (0 failures, 0 errors and 2 unexpected successes in 1 testsuites)
> 
> 
> So when running the full 'make test' something taints this s4member target!
> 
> Nobody cares about fixing bugs in this code. So either remove or fix it :-)

Sigh - so true. Which reminds me to revive my branch
where I change our test infra to do [setup,run,teardown]
for every testsuite we run....

Some people say the path to hell is paved with unwritten second
volumes. My path to hell seems to be paved with unfinished samba
branches... ;-)

Cheers - Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20170111/d00c3fc3/signature.sig>