[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: back-ldif tests

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
There are tests that don't support back-ldif again...  I'll file an ITS
(or reuse ITS#5265?), but first I'm wondering:

When a test with back-ldif fails because data gets sorted differently
from with bdb/hdb and the compare with expected data fails, what's the
best way to fix them?

We can change the data, or add -S "" to ldapsearch, or vary between
both.  The searches are slowly growing -S arguments all over the place,
I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.  It's not always easy to
see if some testdata is carefully built or not.  OTOH maybe there are
tests where the order is important and that's not easy to see either.

E.g. test042-valsort can be fixed by renaming Dave to John,
so he comes after George in data/valsort3.out.  Looks harmless,
I'll do that unless someone says it's a bad idea.

test011-glue-slapadd, test012-glue-populate, test029-ldapglue
look like they can be most easily fixed with -S.

Certain subtrees of the glue data are ordered specifically. It reflects the order in which the glue code walks the tree, and using -S would prevent the verification of this ordering.

  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP     http://www.openldap.org/project/