s4member environment and 'useless' tests

[Andreas Schneider]

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 :-)



	Andreas


-- 
Andreas Schneider                   GPG-ID: CC014E3D
Samba Team                             asn at samba.org
www.samba.org