[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH 016 - 017] First part of the replica promotion tests + testplan
Oleg Fayans
ofayans at redhat.com
Thu Dec 17 09:04:39 UTC 2015
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
>
--
Oleg Fayans
Quality Engineer
FreeIPA team
RedHat.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: freeipa-ofayans-0016.8-First-part-of-replica-promotion-tests.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 10262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/attachments/20151217/f4f2e4c4/attachment.bin>
More information about the Freeipa-devel
mailing list