> In the first case we could easily mitigate the risk by testing and be fairly confident, in the second case the tests are too complex to achieve the same confidence and we should take this kind of risk only if there were a serious benefit to balance it, but in this case, there are other solutions with less risks. Actually, I think testing the lib389 tooling would be even harder. You would need to recreate the logic of the mapping tree and sorting in python, which may have subtle differences compared to the C version. So it would be harder to test and gain confidence in. It also doesn't solve the issue that may come about from manual misconfiguration. > I can understand it could seem too conservervative and frustrating but that is the price when working on mature projects. If you do not do that, the product becomes unstable, and users quickly abandon it. I have worked on this project for a number of years, so I'm well aware of the culture in the team. We are a team who values the highest quality of code, with customers who demand the very best. To satisfy this as engineers we need to be confident in what we do and the work we create. But every day we make changes that are bigger than this, or have "more unknowns" and more. It's out attitude as a team to quality, our attention to testing, and designs, that make us excellent at effectively making changes with confidence. Because just as easily, when a product has subtle traps, unknown configuration bugs and lets people mishandle it, then they also abandon us. Our user experience is paramount, and part of that experience is not just stability, but reliability and correctness, that changes performed by administrators will work and not "silently fail". This bug is just as much a risk for people to abandon us because when the server allows misconfiguration to exist that is hard to isolate and understand that too can cause a negative user experience. So here, I think we are going to have to "agree to disagree", but as Mark has stated - the fix is created, the PR is open. If you have more configuration cases to contribute to the test suite, that would benefit the project significantly to ensure the quality of the change, and the quality of the mapping tree in general. Our job is to qualify and create scenarios that were "unknown" and turn them to "knowns" so we can control changes and have confidence in our work. > On 20 Oct 2020, at 06:10, Mark Reynolds <mreynolds@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > So some of the arguments here is that we are introducing risk for something that is not really a big problem. Or, simply not worth investing in. From a Red Hat perspective "we" would never fix this, it's just not a problem that comes up enough to justify the work and time. But... The initial work has been done by the upstream community (William). With a corporate interest too, we have a customer at SUSE who has hit this :). > So from a RH perspective we are getting this work for free. Personally I don't see this code change as "very" risky, but this is a very sensitive area of the code. That being said, I am not opposed to adding it, but... I think we need much more testing around it to build confidence in the patch. I would want tests that deal with suffixes of varying size, names, nested levels/complexity: > > o=my_server.com > > dc=example,dc=com > > dc=abcdef,dc=abc (same length as suffix above - since the patch uses sizing as a way of sorting) > > dc=test,dc=this,dc=patch Yep, these are some great test ideas. I can add these. > > > > I want tests that are adding and removing subsuffixes, and sub-subsuffixes, and making sure ldap ops work, and replication, etc. I want tests that use many different suffixes at the same time and many subsuffixes - some customers have 50 subsuffixes. Our current CI test suite does not have these kinds of tests, and we need them. I have already checked with replication suite too, and of course, with ASAN. I think that these also are good to have added in general, so I can expand the testing to include more suffixes too. Do you see 50 subsuffixes in a single level nesting or deeper? I can do some shallow nesting and deep nesting hierarchies with that kind of number if you want. I think an interesting test would also be to have ou=x,ou=y,dc=example,dc=com dc=example,dc=com and then add ou=y,dc=example,dc=com in between. Today I think the pre-patched MT code would actually not handle this either, but that's a pretty big edge case IMO. The real guarantee is that we do assemble the tree correctly. We thankfully gain confidence already because the CN is already relied on for routing and query matching anyway, so we know these values *must* be correct, we just need to guarantee the sorting order and tree assembly. Thanks for the ideas Mark :) > > As of today I'm not comfortable with the current CI tests to ack this patch, but if we can ramp it up and cover more scenarios it would be a step in the right direction. This is all just my humble opinion, we are all still just talking :-) > > Mark > > > — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs, Australia _______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
