[Samba] [PATCH] Re: SYSVOL ACLs and GPOs

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:04:44AM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 22:02 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:10:13PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > diff --git a/source4/selftest/tests.py b/source4/selftest/tests.py
> > > index ca5bdd3..61540d0 100755
> > > --- a/source4/selftest/tests.py
> > > +++ b/source4/selftest/tests.py
> > > @@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ planpythontestsuite("dc:local", "samba.tests.dcerpc.bare")
> > >  planpythontestsuite("dc:local", "samba.tests.dcerpc.unix")
> > >  planpythontestsuite("dc:local", "samba.tests.dcerpc.srvsvc")
> > >  planpythontestsuite("dc:local", "samba.tests.samba_tool.timecmd")
> > > +planpythontestsuite("dc:local", "samba.tests.samba_tool.gpo")
> > > +planpythontestsuite("plugin_s4_dc:local", "samba.tests.samba_tool.gpo")
> > Do we really need to run these tests against both environments? These
> > tests ought to be testing that the samba-tool gpo subcommand works
> > well, not our server side GPO support.
> > 
> > As far as I know the gpo subcommands don't have any different
> > behaviour for these two environments.
> 
> It's the only test we have at the moment for our server-side support
> (being able to add the GPO, with a valid acl and owner etc).
> 
> Indeed, that was why I added it, because it was suggested this tool
> showed up the issues we have been having (it didn't).
If we really want to run these tests against both environments, for
lack of any more appropriate tests, it would be nice to add a comment
saying so.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba/attachments/20121105/ed9cbe4b/attachment.pgp>