Skip to content

[autobackport: sssd-2-10] tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface#8461

Draft
sssd-bot wants to merge 1 commit intoSSSD:sssd-2-10from
sssd-bot:SSSD-sssd-backport-pr8451-to-sssd-2-10
Draft

[autobackport: sssd-2-10] tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface#8461
sssd-bot wants to merge 1 commit intoSSSD:sssd-2-10from
sssd-bot:SSSD-sssd-backport-pr8451-to-sssd-2-10

Conversation

@sssd-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This is an automatic backport of PR#8451 tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface to branch sssd-2-10, created by @aborah-sudo.

Caution

@aborah-sudo The patches did not apply cleanly. It is necessary to resolve conflicts before merging this pull request. Commits that introduced conflict are marked with CONFLICT!.

You can push changes to this pull request

git remote add sssd-bot git@github.com:sssd-bot/sssd.git
git fetch sssd-bot refs/heads/SSSD-sssd-backport-pr8451-to-sssd-2-10
git checkout SSSD-sssd-backport-pr8451-to-sssd-2-10
git push sssd-bot SSSD-sssd-backport-pr8451-to-sssd-2-10 --force

Original commits
1571946 - tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface

Backported commits

  • 57d750e - CONFLICT! tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface

Conflicting Files Information (check for deleted and re-added files)

  • CONFLICT! tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface
On branch SSSD-sssd-backport-pr8451-to-sssd-2-10
You are currently cherry-picking commit 157194618.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   src/tests/system/tests/test_infopipe.py

no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a")

Original Pull Request Body

Group the infopipe tests into logical sections based on the D-Bus interface they exercise:

  • Infopipe (root object)
  • Domains
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Mixed/Combined interfaces

This is a pure reorganization with no logic changes to improve test maintainability and readability.

Group the infopipe tests into logical sections based on the D-Bus
interface they exercise:
- Infopipe (root object)
- Domains
- Users
- Groups
- Mixed/Combined interfaces

This is a pure reorganization with no logic changes to improve test
maintainability and readability.

Reviewed-by: Jakub Vávra <jvavra@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Shridhar Gadekar <sgadekar@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 1571946)
Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

The code changes in this pull request reorganize the infopipe tests by interface. The changes include tests for pinging the infopipe, listing components, finding a monitor, finding a user by ID, and updating user groups. There is a merge conflict in the file that needs to be resolved, keeping the test_infopipe__find_user_by_id function.

Comment on lines +354 to +361
<<<<<<< HEAD
@pytest.mark.ticket(bz=1667252)
@pytest.mark.topology(KnownTopologyGroup.AnyProvider)
def test_infopipe__lookup_user_with_extra_attributes(client: Client, provider: GenericProvider):
=======
@pytest.mark.topology(KnownTopology.LDAP)
def test_infopipe__find_user_by_id(client: Client, provider: GenericProvider):
>>>>>>> 157194618 (tests: reorganize infopipe tests by interface)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

critical

This file contains merge conflict markers which make it syntactically incorrect. Please resolve the conflict. Based on the PR's goal of reorganizing tests, it seems test_infopipe__find_user_by_id should be kept here.

@pytest.mark.topology(KnownTopology.LDAP)
def test_infopipe__find_user_by_id(client: Client, provider: GenericProvider):



@pytest.mark.importance("medium")
<<<<<<< HEAD

Check failure

Code scanning / CodeQL

Syntax error Error test

Syntax Error (in Python 3).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants