s4member environment and 'useless' tests

[Rowland Penny]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:28:49 +1300
Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> 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.

Er, "I don't feel like removing that code" , I don't feel comfortable
with that statement.

> 
> > > 
> > > 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.

What I meant was, it is useless testing something that will never be
used in production.

> 
> > > 
> > > 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.  

It is understood why it is failing, it is failing because the test is
against an unused entity.

> 
> > > 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.  

Yes, I understand that there are times when you have to let go of
failed experiments, you seemingly don't.

> 
> 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.

Not really ;-)

Can I ask a question, what if you have code that is 100% perfect but a
test fails, which would you fix ?
I get the feeling that you would fix the code. LOL

Rowland