[Samba] ntvfs file server and selftest background

Rowland Penny rpenny at samba.org
Mon Dec 5 16:46:36 UTC 2016


On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 04:31:34 +1300
Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 08:47 +0000, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 21:30:20 +1300
> > Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 08:12 +0000, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 21:07:48 +1300
> > > > Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is a lot of work to change the situation, even more so
> > > > > without
> > > > > loss
> > > > > of important tests.  A number of tests, particularly for
> > > > > spoolss
> > > > > but
> > > > > also of the cifs proxy (which in turn tests kerberos
> > > > > delegation),
> > > > > use
> > > > > the ntvfs file server.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, but how can you be sure that something you are testing
> > > > against
> > > > ntvfs actually works with s3fs ? 
> > > 
> > > The spoolss tests are testing the (very odd) rpc call-back
> > > functionality that requires the spoolss server to make a reverse
> > > call
> > > to the client to deliver the notifications.  The ntvfs file server
> > > helps provide one of the layers involved, to allow the smbtorture
> > > process to listen as an smb server and then provide a specail RPC
> > > interface.
> > > 
> > > As we don't otherwise implement the client side of this protocol,
> > > the
> > > means used to implement it are not important, we are testing the
> > > server against a instrumented mock implementation.
> > > 
> > > This isn't the only reason that part of the codebase is used, but
> > > I hope I can clarify at least this one for you.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Andrew Bartlett
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry, but no, it doesn't clarify anything. What you didn't say is
> > whether anything will actually make the rpc call in the real world.
> > If
> > nothing ever will, then there is no point in testing it. What I am
> > trying to get at, using ntvfs in testing, then moving to s3fs in
> > production, is a like test running an engine fitted with a
> > carburettor, then fitting fuel injection in production without
> > further
> > testing, just how are you supposed to be sure it will work correctly
> > ?
> > 
> > I thought the whole idea behind testing, is to actually test what
> > will
> > be used, or am I wrong ?
> 
> Don't worry, the smbd file server is also extensively tested. 
> 
> Andrew Bartlett
> 

That is not the point, if you are testing 'something' against ntvfs &
s3fs, then surely the ntvfs test is no longer required. If you are
testing 'something' against ntvfs but not testing it against s3fs, how
do you know it works with s3fs ?

Surely testing using a component that isn't used in production isn't a
good idea, wouldn't it make more sense to alter all the tests to use
s3fs instead of ntvfs ?

Rowland
 



More information about the samba mailing list