[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 016, 024, 025] First part of the replica promotion tests + testplan
Martin Basti
mbasti at redhat.com
Fri Mar 4 07:39:04 UTC 2016
On 04.03.2016 08:37, Martin Basti wrote:
>
>
> On 03.03.2016 18:38, Martin Basti wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02.03.2016 13:47, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>
>> 1)
>> this method is unused please remove it
>>
>> def test_kra_install_master(self):
>>
>> 2)
>> Why are these there? I do not see any usage
>>
>> from env_config import get_global_config
>> config = get_global_config()
>>
>> 3) nitpick
>> + num_clients = 0
>> this is set by default
>>
>> otherwise LGTM
>>
>> Results of testing tomorrow.
>>
>> Martin^2
>>
>
> I applied all patches including workarounds, but test failed.
>
> ipatests.test_integration.test_replica_promotion.TestReplicaPromotionLevel0
>
>
> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica1.cmd51] RUN
> ['ipa-replica-install', '-U', '-p', 'Secret123', '-w', 'Secret123',
> '--setup-ca', '--ip-address', '192.168.144.102',
> '/root/ipatests/replica-info.gpg']
> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica1.cmd51] The host
> replica1.ipa.test already exists on the master server.
> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica1.cmd51] You should
> remove it before proceeding:
> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica1.cmd51] % ipa
> host-del replica1.ipa.test
> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica1.cmd51]
> ipa.ipapython.install.cli.install_tool(Replica): ERROR The
> ipa-replica-install command failed. See
> /var/log/ipareplica-install.log for more information
> [ipa.ipatests.test_integration.host.Host.replica1.cmd51] Exit code: 3
> FAILED
>
And it needs ticket, otherwise it will not be in 4-3 branch.
More information about the Freeipa-devel
mailing list