[SCM] Samba Shared Repository - branch master updated
Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
mdw at samba.org
Sat Sep 11 14:55:32 MDT 2010
Hi Jelmer,
first this patch originally wasn't by me - I've only integrated it. But
it is really bad style to use such "manual" testing code? And there are
some more places where this is used - always in the same file.
Cheers,
Matthias
Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 19:15 +0200, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>
>> @@ -173,11 +174,19 @@ testit "wbinfo -D against $TARGET" $wbinfo -D $DOMAIN || failed=`expr $failed +
>>
>> testit "wbinfo -i against $TARGET" $wbinfo -i "$DOMAIN/$USERNAME" || failed=`expr $failed + 1`
>>
>> -testit "wbinfo --uid-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --uid-info $admin_uid
>> +testit "wbinfo --uid-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --uid-info $admin_uid || failed=`expr $failed + 1`
>>
>> -# this does not work
>> -knownfail "wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --group-info "S-1-22-2-0"
>> -knownfail "wbinfo --gid-info against $TARGET" $wbinfo --gid-info 30001
>> +echo "test: wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET"
>> +rawgid=`$wbinfo --group-info "Domain admins" | sed 's/.*:\([0-9][0-9]*\):/\1/'`
>> +if test x$? = x0; then
>> + echo "success: wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET"
>> +else
>> + echo "failure: wbinfo --group-info against $TARGET"
>> + failed=`expr $failed + 1`
>> +fi
>>
> Is there any reason for manually printing here rather than using the
> testit function?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>
>
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list