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

[Martin Basti]

On 09.10.2015 22:04, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>
>
> On 10/09/2015 11:03 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:31:32AM +0200, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>
>>> a heavy process. Also, I wouldn't be strict about it, as we already 
>>> have
>>> a couple of workarounds, and not every time a workaround has a exact
>>> mapping to a particular ticket.
>>
>> Frankly, this worries me much more than not having ticket for some
>> trivial change to the code base.
>>
>> If there's workaround in tests, it's some action that we do but
>> users/admins don't in their real setups. And that can cause failures
>> for our users that we don't see or even no longer know about because
>> in our tests, we've cleverly worked around them.
>
> I guess, the global question of whether to do workarounds in tests to 
> make them pass or not is older than the very oldest profession on earth.
> I must admit, I am on Jan's side here. I would prefer to implement the 
> approach proposed by Milan: mark the test scenario as expected failure 
> (if it is crucial to make the whole run pass), or better even to leave 
> it as it is: just so that each red CI run would remind of the 
> necessity to fix the original issue.
>
> This all is a theory, however. What do we do with this particular 
> case? It's an edge case (does anyone except root zone admins sign a 
> root zone?). Should we probably disable the whole scenario? Or just 
> leave it failing as it is?
>

This bug does not happen just for root zone. Other zones are affected too.
I would leave it failing, we have to fix it.

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