[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 016, 024, 025] First part of the replica promotion tests + testplan
Oleg Fayans
ofayans at redhat.com
Wed Mar 2 12:47:35 UTC 2016
Hi Martin,
I've made the requested changes.
The full set of necessary patches is attached.
On 03/02/2016 10:05 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
>
>
> On 02.03.2016 00:12, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 03/01/2016 07:04 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.03.2016 14:56, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01.03.2016 12:37, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01.03.2016 12:32, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29.02.2016 13:16, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally the tests pass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The patch 0024 applies on top of patch 0022 (please, consider
>>>>>>> reviewing
>>>>>>> it also). Besides, the whole functionality depends on Martin's
>>>>>>> patch N 0421
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All patches pass pylint.
>>>>>> hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot apply patches on master branch
>>>>>> Martin^2
>>>>> My bad I applied wrong patch
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 11:56 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17.12.2015 10:04, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, in my previous email I attached the old version of
>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>> 0016. The correct on is attached.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/16/2015 05:47 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 16.12.2015 15:39, Martin Basti wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15.12.2015 10:29, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>> LGTM, I haven't had time to test it, but if you are sure that
>>>>>>>>>>> test is
>>>>>>>>>>> working, we may push this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this expected due the bug you mentioned?
>>>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TestReplicaPromotionLevel0.test_kra_install_master
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> self =
>>>>>>>>>> <ipatests.test_integration.test_replica_promotion.TestReplicaPromotionLevel0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> object at 0x7f5071a59e50>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> def test_kra_install_master(self):
>>>>>>>>>> result1 = tasks.install_kra(self.master,
>>>>>>>>>> raiseonerr=False)
>>>>>>>>>>> assert result1.returncode == 0, result1.stderr_text
>>>>>>>>>> E AssertionError: Usage: ipa-kra-install [options]
>>>>>>>>>> [replica_file]
>>>>>>>>>> E
>>>>>>>>>> E ipa-kra-install: error: Replica file
>>>>>>>>>> /root/ipatests/replica-info.gpg does not exist
>>>>>>>>>> E The ipa-kra-install command failed. See
>>>>>>>>>> /var/log/ipaserver-kra-install.log for more information
>>>>>>>>>> E
>>>>>>>>>> E assert 2 == 0
>>>>>>>>>> E + where 2 = <pytest_multihost.transport.SSHCommand
>>>>>>>>>> object at
>>>>>>>>>> 0x7f5071adbd50>.returncode
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO the test needs fix, KRA on replica file needs KRA related
>>>>>>>> certificates in replica file
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica2.ParamikoTransport]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RUN
>>>>>>>> ['ipa-kra-install', '-U', '-p', 'Secret123',
>>>>>>>> '/root/ipatests/replica-info.gpg']
>>>>>>>> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica2.cmd27] RUN
>>>>>>>> ['ipa-kra-install', '-U', '-p', 'Secret123',
>>>>>>>> '/root/ipatests/replica-info.gpg']
>>>>>>>> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica2.cmd27] Missing
>>>>>>>> KRA
>>>>>>>> certificates, please create a new replica file.
>>>>>>>> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica2.cmd27] The
>>>>>>>> ipa-kra-install command failed. See
>>>>>>>> /var/log/ipaserver-kra-install.log
>>>>>>>> for more information
>>>>>>>> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica2.cmd27] Exit
>>>>>>>> code: 1
>>>>>>>> FAILED
>>>>>>>> traceback
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> self =
>>>>>>>> <ipatests.test_integration.test_replica_promotion.TestKRAInstall
>>>>>>>> object at 0x7f660bc1a590>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> I just read the code.
>>>>
>>>> PATCH 16:
>>>> 0)
>>>> PEP8
>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:24:14: E111
>>>> indentation is not a multiple of four
>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:24:14: E113
>>>> unexpected indentation
>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:148:80: E501
>>>> line too long (80 > 79 characters)
>>>> ./ipatests/test_integration/test_replica_promotion.py:150:80: E501
>>>> line too long (81 > 79 characters)
>>>>
>>>> 1)
>>>> workaround is not workaround, because the host entry is removed
>>>> anyway, the error is raised from POST callback, please remove it
>>>> + # Workaround for 5627
>>>> + if "host not found" in result.stderr_text:
>>>> + self.master.run_command(["ipa",
>>>> + "host-del",
>>>> + host.hostname],
>>>> raiseonerr=False)
>>> sorry, I was wrong with this, check is in pre_callback, but please
>>> remove it anyway, I will send patch to fix it ASAP
>> Done
> I realized that the fix I'm working on is for 4.4 only, so for 4.3 add
> this as separated patch.
Done, patch 0027
>>>> 2)
>>>> Please name it better, for example "replica" instead of "i"
>>>> + for i in self.replicas:
>>>> + tasks.install_replica(master, i, setup_ca=False,
>>>> + setup_dns=True)
>> Done
>>
>>>> 3)
>>>> Please use constant for domain level (multiple times)
>>>> + result1 = tasks.install_ca(replica1, domain_level=1,
>>>> raiseonerr=False)
>>>>
>>>> + tasks.install_ca(replica1, domain_level=0)
>>>> + result2 = tasks.install_ca(replica2, domain_level=0,
>>>> raiseonerr=False)
>>>> ... more times
>> Done
>>
>>>> 4)
>>>> This link does not exists, only connect is deprecated not
>>>> ipa-replica-manage at all
>>>> + def test_replica_manage_commands(self):
>>>> + """
>>>> + TestCase:
>>>> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Replica_Promotion/Test_plan
>>>> + #Test_case:_ipa-replica-manage_is_deprecated_in_domain_level_1
>>>> + """
>> Fixed
>>
>>>> 5)
>>>> Missing testcases:
>>>>
>>>> Test case: Unprivileged users are not allowed to enroll and promote
>>>> clients
>>>> Test case: Replica created using old workflow is functional after
>>>> domain upgrade
>>>> Test case: ipa-csreplica-manage connect is deprecated in domain level 1
>>>> Test case: Replica can be installed using one command
>>>> Test case: Prohibit ipa server uninstallation from disconnecting
>>>> topology segment
>>>>
>> They are on the way, not fully ready yet
>>
>>>> PATCH 24:
>>>>
>>>> 1)
>>>> why there is this change, how it is related to this patch?:
>>>> def apply_common_fixes(host):
>>>> + prepare_host(host)
>>>> fix_etc_hosts(host)
>>>> fix_hostname(host)
>>>> - prepare_host(host)
>> Good catch! That was one of my attempts to address the issue that was
>> successfully resolved in patch 0025. Will remove it once we agree on the
>> rest of the changes
Removed
>>
>>>> 2)
>>>> Why is there this change, how it is related to this patch?:
>>>> def replica_prepare(master, replica):
>>>> - apply_common_fixes(replica)
>>>> fix_apache_semaphores(replica)
>>>> ...
>>>> def install_replica(master, replica, setup_ca=True, setup_dns=False,
>>>> ...
>>>> + apply_common_fixes(replica)
>> Just to make this call independent from domain level (at domain_level 1
>> replica_prepare never gets called)
> It should be in separate commit, because it is not related to adding
> domain_level in class functionality
Done. Patch 0026
>>
>>
>>>> 3)
>>>> why is there this change, how it is related to this patch?:
>>>> -
>>>> + args.extend(['-n', replica.domain.name,
>>>> + '-r', replica.domain.realm])
>> At least -r is a required parameter. -n was added for further
>> robustness. Can be safely removed, though
> It should be in separate commit, as this is not related to domain levels
Done. Patch 0026
>>
>>>> 4)
>>>> why there force, how is this change related to this patch (domain
>>>> levels)?
>>>> '-w', client.config.admin_password,
>>>> - '--server', master.hostname]
>>>> + '--server', master.hostname,
>>>> + '--force']
>>>> + list(extra_args))
>> client refuses to install unless everything is super clear in the dns
>> setup (including reverse zone). Otherwise the installer fails and
>> informs you that you may use '--force' at your own risk. I can rerun the
>> tests without this option to provide you with the exact output, if you
>> like.
> It should be in separated commit, because it is not related to domain
> levels
I've run the tests without this option again at it passed. Must have
been some temporary issue. Removed this change.
>>
>>>> Otherwise domain level related changes LGTM
>>>>
>>>> PATCH 25
>>>>
>>>> LGTM
>>>>
>>>> Martin^2
>>>>
>
--
Oleg Fayans
Quality Engineer
FreeIPA team
RedHat.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0016.9-Integration-tests-for-replica-promotion-feature.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 10939 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20160302/54fe0a6b/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0022.2-Removed-messing-around-with-resolv.conf.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3289 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20160302/54fe0a6b/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0024.1-Enabled-setting-domain-level-explicitly-in-test-clas.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4116 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20160302/54fe0a6b/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0025-Removed-a-constantly-failing-call-to-prepare_host.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1531 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20160302/54fe0a6b/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0026-replica-installation-fixes.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1841 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20160302/54fe0a6b/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0027-Workaround-for-ticket-5627.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1213 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20160302/54fe0a6b/attachment-0005.bin>
More information about the Freeipa-devel
mailing list