[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 0022][Tests] Prevent trust test failures cause by adding duplicate DNS forward zone

[Petr Spacek]

On 29.6.2016 18:52, Lenka Doudova wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/29/2016 06:51 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> On 29.6.2016 18:48, Lenka Doudova wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/27/2016 11:05 AM, Lenka Doudova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/27/2016 10:33 AM, Martin Babinsky wrote:
>>>>> On 06/27/2016 10:28 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>>>> On 27.6.2016 10:26, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27.6.2016 10:18, Martin Babinsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/27/2016 10:04 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/27/2016 09:42 AM, Lenka Doudova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With newly created AD machines in Brno lab, existing trust tests
>>>>>>>>>> fail on
>>>>>>>>>> 'ipa dnsforwardzone-add' command claiming the zone is already present,
>>>>>>>>>> as new AD domain is dom-221.idm.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To prevent these failures I prepared attached patch, that will still
>>>>>>>>>> attempt to add the forward zone, but in case of non-zero return code
>>>>>>>>>> will check the message if it says that the forward zone is already
>>>>>>>>>> configured, and lets the tests continue, if it is so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lenka
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Current approach expects that every error of ipa dnsforward-add here
>>>>>>>>> will mean that the zone exists. So it might hide other issues - not very
>>>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand it is not very robust to parse error message.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Question for general audience: What do you think if IPA client's exit
>>>>>>>>> status would be the IPA error code instead of "1" for every error. E.g.
>>>>>>>>> in DuplicateEntry case it's 4002.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Btw, this is not a NACK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well AFAIK the exit status on POSIX systems is encoded into a single
>>>>>>>> byte so
>>>>>>>> you cannot have the return value greater that 255. We would have to
>>>>>>>> devise
>>>>>>>> some mapping between our XMLRPC status codes and subprocess return codes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of our exceptions have defined return values outside plain '1', e.g.
>>>>>>>> NotFound has return value of 2. It would be possible to extend this
>>>>>>>> concept on
>>>>>>>> other common errors.
>>>>>>> Even more importantly, the forward zone is completely unnecessary because
>>>>>>> DNS
>>>>>>> when DNS is set up properly. I would simply remove the dnsforwardzone-add.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Grr, I meant this:
>>>>>> Even more importantly, the forward zone is completely unnecessary when
>>>>>> DNS is
>>>>>> set up properly. I would simply remove the dnsforwardzone-add.
>>>>>>
>>>>> +1, our tests should not fiddle with the provisioned environment as much as
>>>>> they sometimes do.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I have nothing against removing it completely, but left it there just
>>>> because with previous AD machines with "wild" domains it was necessary.
>>>> Looking at the code, your suggestion would probably mean to entirely remove
>>>> method configure_dns_for_trust from ipatests/test_integration/tasks.py,
>>>> right? I'll have to verify this won't break anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Lenka
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> to get back to this issue: do we really want to have the DNS configuration
>>> method removed? I mean, we no longer need it for our CI tests, with new AD VMs
>>> it works without it, but should somebody else with different setup run these
>>> tests, they could experience failures because their AD domain would not be
>>> configured in DNS by default and the test would no longer provide that
>>> configuration. It doesn't feel right to delete something we needed before but
>>> don't need anymore, in case somebody else is depending on the same
>>> configuration. But of course, I'll abide by your counsel.
>>> In case the call on DNS configuration method really is removed, should I
>>> remove even it's definition? It's not used anywhere else, so it would be quite
>>> logical.
>> Feel free to keep empty method around as a "hook" for other people. The
>> important thing is that it should do nothing by default.
>>
> So leave the method call, but erase method contents and let it just pass?

Fine with me. (List re-added.)

-- 
Petr^2 Spacek