[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 016 - 017] First part of the replica promotion tests + testplan
Oleg Fayans
ofayans at redhat.com
Tue Dec 15 09:29:36 UTC 2015
Hi Martin,
The updated patches are attached. Patch 0017 includes all changes from
patch 0018, so, if you approve this one, there would be no need to
continue with the review of 0018. This one contains all changes related
to you remarks from 0018 review. Please see my explanation on the
stdout+stderr part in the thread from patch 0018.
With these two patches applied one of the tests fails due this bug:
https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5550
On 12/09/2015 12:17 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>
>
> On 09.12.2015 12:10, Martin Basti wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09.12.2015 11:14, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>> Hi Martin
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2015 10:30 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08.12.2015 23:48, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>> Substituted a hardcoded suffix name with a constant DOMAIN_SUFFIX_NAME
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/08/2015 02:33 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patches are rebased against the current master.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/02/2015 05:10 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02.12.2015 16:18, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2015 04:08 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27.11.2015 16:26, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> And patch N 16 passes lint too:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 04:03 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2015 03:26 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27.11.2015 15:04, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All your suggestions were taken into account. Both patches are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated. Thank you for your help!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2015 10:50 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26.11.2015 10:04, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree to all your points but one. please, see my comment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2015 07:42 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0) Note
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please be aware of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5469
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KRA testing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please do not use MIN and MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL constants,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over time, use DOMAIN_LEVEL_0 and DOMAIN_LEVEL_1 for domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why uninstall KRA then server, is not enough just uninstall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covers KRA uninstall?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + def teardown_method(self, method):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + for host in self.replicas:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + host.run_command(self.kra_uninstall,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> raiseonerr=False)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + tasks.uninstall_master(host)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can be this function more generic? It should allow specify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> host
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KRA should be installed not just master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + def test_kra_install_master(self):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + self.master.run_command(self.kra_install)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestLevel0(Dummy):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can be the test name more specific, something like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestReplicaPromotionLevel0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> please remove this, the patch is on review and it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sooner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + @pytest.mark.xfail # Ticket N 5455
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and as I mentioned in ticket #5455, I cannot reproduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipa-kra-install, so please provide steps to reproduce if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this still does not work as expected with KRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) This is completely wrong, it removes everything that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve with previous patches with domain level in CI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, being able to configure domain level per class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is WAY
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenient, than to always have to think which domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate for which particular test during jenkins job
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. In fact, I should have thought about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning. For example, in test_replica_promotion.py we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which intiates with domain level = 1, while others - with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0. With config-based approach, we would have to implement a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step that raises domain level. Overall, I am against the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you have to remember to set certain domain level in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any particular test. The tests themselves should be aware of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain level they need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not say that we should not have something that overrides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in from config in a particular test case, I say your patch is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree it is useful to have param domain_level in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> install_master,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intall_topo methods, but is cannot be MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because with your current patch the domain_level in config is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all, it will be always MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example I want to achieve this goal:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test_vault.py, this test suite can run on domain level1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level0, so with one test we can test 2 domain levels just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain level into config file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that with extraordinary test like replica
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> promotion test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need something that allows override the config file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said bellow, domain_level default value should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> install_master and install_topo plugin. If domain level was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the specified one, if not (value is None) use the domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [PATCH] Enabled setting domain_level per class derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestIntegration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I configure domain level 0 in yaml config, how is this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get into install methods when you removed that code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - "--domain-level=%i" % host.config.domain_level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "--domain-level=%i" % domain_level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You always use MAX_DOMAIN_LEVEL in this case or whatever is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain_level option.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest to use domain_level=None, and when it is None use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'host.config.domain_level', if it is not None, use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'domain_level'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this we can specify domain level in config file for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used for both domain levels and you can manually specify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for test that requires specific domain level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also this should go away
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @classmethod
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> def install(cls, mh):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if hasattr(cls, "domain_level") and cls.master:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + cls.master.config.domain_level = cls.domain_level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if cls.topology is None:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do not see reason why test should override
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25.11.2015 16:44, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the updated version of the patch (more tests +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues of the first one) + patch 0017, that implements the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes in the background code, i. e. patch 16 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2015 05:20 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 09.11.2015 15:09, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are first two automated testcases from this (so far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testplan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Replica_Promotion/Test_plan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Testplan review is highly appreciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PATCH 16: NACK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the reason to add an unused parameter to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'domain_level' to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> install_topo()?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also it is good practise to add new option as the last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cab you in both tests specify a domain level with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number literal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both test call install_topo with custom domain level,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because 1) (did you run the test?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How the test "TestLevel1" is supposed to work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Respectively why there is call of install_topo() that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replica.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As this test just tests that ipa-replica-prepare is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it worth to spend 20 minutes with installing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replica and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tot use it? IMO to install master in install step is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ./make-lint
>>>>>>>>>>>> ************* Module ipatests.test_integration.base
>>>>>>>>>>>> ipatests/test_integration/base.py:66: [E1101(no-member),
>>>>>>>>>>>> IntegrationTest.install] Class 'IntegrationTest' has no
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'domain_level'
>>>>>>>>>>>> member)
>>>>>>>>>>>> ************* Module
>>>>>>>>>>>> ipatests.test_integration.test_replica_promotion
>>>>>>>>>>>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:16:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [E1101(no-member), Dummy.install] Class 'Dummy' has no
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'domain_level'
>>>>>>>>>>>> member)
>>>>>>>>>>>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:117:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [E1101(no-member),
>>>>>>>>>>>> TestCAInstall.test_ca_install_without_replica_file]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Module 'ipatests.test_integration.tasks' has no 'setup_replica'
>>>>>>>>>>>> member)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it so hard to run pylint before patch is posted for review?
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, my bad. Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>>> Why is this change in the patch?
>>>>>>>>> - # Clean up the test directory
>>>>>>>>> - host.run_command(['rm', '-rvf', host.config.test_dir])
>>>>>>>> Otherwise 2 out of 8 tests fail with IOError at line 78 of
>>>>>>>> ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not understand yet how does this happen, but if you remove
>>>>>>>> ipatests folder once, it then fails to be created again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this should be in separated patch and investigated properly.
>>>>>> Agree. Removed
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>>> is enough to have this check only in install_master,
>>>>>>>>> install_topo can
>>>>>>>>> pass None to install_master
>>>>>>>>> + if domain_level is None:
>>>>>>>>> + domain_level = master.config.domain_level
>>>>>>>> Done
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>>>>> IMO replica-manage del should cleanup hosts entry, so following
>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>> should not be needed.
>>>>>>>>> + if cleanhost:
>>>>>>>>> + kinit_admin(master)
>>>>>>>>> + master.run_command(["ipa", "host-del", "--updatedns",
>>>>>>>>> replica.hostname],
>>>>>>>>> + raiseonerr=False)
>>>>>>>> Well, in fact it does not. At least the corresponding dns record
>>>>>>>> stays
>>>>>>>> and causes the subsequent ipa-client-install to fail. Probably
>>>>>>>> it's a
>>>>>>>> bug. On the other hand, if I promote an existing client to
>>>>>>>> replica and
>>>>>>>> then delete this replica, then, I probably want the host record
>>>>>>>> (that
>>>>>>>> was created during client-install) to stay in the system. So,
>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>> look like a bug to me.
>>>>>>> No you don't, because replica uninstallation also removes the
>>>>>>> client.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried it with ipa42, ipa-replica-manage del removes host entry,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> DNS A records, only SSHFP records stay there (I'm not sure if it
>>>>>>> is bug
>>>>>>> or feature)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also I received this message
>>>>>>> """
>>>>>>> Failed to cleanup replica1.ipa.test DNS entries: no matching entry
>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>> You may need to manually remove them from the tree
>>>>>>> """
>>>>>>> But, A record has been removed, so this is probably false
>>>>>>> positive and
>>>>>>> it needs to have a ticket.
>>>>>> Agree, that was an issue with my setup.
>>>>>> Removed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4)
>>>>>>>>> This variable is not used
>>>>>>>>> + kra_uninstall = ["ipa-kra-install", "--uninstall", "-U"]
>>>>>>>> Removed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5)
>>>>>>>>> Why do you need this
>>>>>>>>> + kra_install = ["ipa-kra-install", "-U", "-p",
>>>>>>>>> config.dirman_password]
>>>>>>>>> when you implemented tasks.install_kra that returns the exactly
>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>> result?
>>>>>>>> Right. Removed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 6)
>>>>>>>>> PEP8
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:928:1: E302 expected 2 blank
>>>>>>>>> lines,
>>>>>>>>> found 1
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:934:1: E302 expected 2 blank
>>>>>>>>> lines,
>>>>>>>>> found 1
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:939:1: E302 expected 2 blank
>>>>>>>>> lines,
>>>>>>>>> found 1
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:943:1: E302 expected 2 blank
>>>>>>>>> lines,
>>>>>>>>> found 1
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py:950:80: E501 line too long
>>>>>>>>> (80 > 79
>>>>>>>>> characters)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:29:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (85 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:64:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (85 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:67:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (88 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:93:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (80 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:94:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (83 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:118:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (81 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:128:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (80 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:129:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (82 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:181:80: E501
>>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>>> too long (80 > 79 characters)
>>>>>>>> Most of these complaints are unrelated to the current patches.
>>>>>>>> It's better to create a separate patch addressing PEP8 errors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I beg for your pardon, those PEP8 errors have been introduced by
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> patches.
>>>>>> Fixed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 7)
>>>>>>>>> Why this must be stored in instance? IMO to have it stored as
>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>> variable is perfect
>>>>>>>>> TestKRAInstall, TestCAInstall
>>>>>>>>> self.replica1_filename =
>>>>>>>>> tasks.get_replica_filename(replica1)
>>>>>>>>> self.replica2_filename =
>>>>>>>>> tasks.get_replica_filename(replica2)
>>>>>>>> Agree. Fixed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> This patch is missing something.
>>> I am sorry, I forgot to revert my previous change. The correct patch is
>>> attached
>>>
>> ************* Module ipatests.test_integration.test_replica_promotion
>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:15:
>> [E1123(unexpected-keyword-arg), Dummy.install] Unexpected keyword
>> argument 'domain_level' in function call)
>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:15:
>> [E1101(no-member), Dummy.install] Class 'Dummy' has no 'domain_level'
>> member)
>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:19:
>> [E1101(no-member), Dummy.teardown_method] Module
>> 'ipatests.test_integration.tasks' has no 'uninstall_replica' member)
>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:67:
>> [E1101(no-member), TestReplicaPromotionLevel0.test_backup_restore]
>> Module 'ipatests.test_integration.tasks' has no 'ipa_backup' member)
>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:72:
>> [E1101(no-member), TestReplicaPromotionLevel0.test_backup_restore]
>> Module 'ipatests.test_integration.tasks' has no 'ipa_restore' member)
>> ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:120:
>> [E1123(unexpected-keyword-arg), TestCAInstall.install] Unexpected
>> keyword argument 'domain_level' in function call)
>>
> Sorry I forgot to apply patch 17, my bad, I'm continuing with review
--
Oleg Fayans
Quality Engineer
FreeIPA team
RedHat.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0016.7-First-part-of-replica-promotion-tests.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 10166 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20151215/e3d4ef06/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0017.4-Enabled-setting-domain_level-per-class.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5802 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20151215/e3d4ef06/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the Freeipa-devel
mailing list