[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] Workaround for trac N 5348

[Oleg Fayans]

On 10/09/2015 11:03 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:31:32AM +0200, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>
>> a heavy process. Also, I wouldn't be strict about it, as we already have
>> a couple of workarounds, and not every time a workaround has a exact
>> mapping to a particular ticket.
>
> Frankly, this worries me much more than not having ticket for some
> trivial change to the code base.
>
> If there's workaround in tests, it's some action that we do but
> users/admins don't in their real setups. And that can cause failures
> for our users that we don't see or even no longer know about because
> in our tests, we've cleverly worked around them.

I guess, the global question of whether to do workarounds in tests to 
make them pass or not is older than the very oldest profession on earth.
I must admit, I am on Jan's side here. I would prefer to implement the 
approach proposed by Milan: mark the test scenario as expected failure 
(if it is crucial to make the whole run pass), or better even to leave 
it as it is: just so that each red CI run would remind of the necessity 
to fix the original issue.

This all is a theory, however. What do we do with this particular case? 
It's an edge case (does anyone except root zone admins sign a root 
zone?). Should we probably disable the whole scenario? Or just leave it 
failing as it is?

>
> Either that workaround step is needed and needs to be documented, or
> that step should not be needed and there should be a ticket describing
> the issue.
>

-- 
Oleg Fayans
Quality Engineer
FreeIPA team
RedHat.