BIND 10 #606: See which of BIND 9 tests can be re-used or re-implemented for BIND 10

[BIND 10 Development]

#606: See which of BIND 9 tests can be re-used or re-implemented for BIND 10
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  stephen  |                Owner:  jinmei
                     Type:  task     |               Status:  reviewing
                 Priority:  major    |            Milestone:  A-Team-
                Component:           |  Sprint-20110309
  b10-auth                           |           Resolution:
                 Keywords:           |            Sensitive:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  3.0      |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                Billable?:  1        |          Total Hours:  0
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:7 vorner]:

 > I have few comments.
 >  - Why is the unlink in boss's dump pid needed? Wouldn't overwriting the
 file (eg. open(filename, 'w')) be enough?

 To be honest I didn't think about that much; it was basically a
 straightforward port of the equivalent BIND 9 code (written in C).
 On thinking about it, I see some subtle difference: with explicit unlink,
 we can make sure that a file is created even if there's an existing one
 for which the current process doesn't have the write persmission (as long
 as the directory is writable).

 But this is relatievely a minor difference.  If you want to remove the
 explicit unlink, I'm okay with that.

 >  - The README contains note of make test, but the toplevel makefile has
 systest, not test.

 Good catch, fixed.

 >  - When I run make distcheck, it fails for me:

 Another good catch, fixed.  I also added some explicit checks related to
 this case.

 >  - The digcomp.pl seems like a bad perl code (not wrong, just not
 following usual conventions, like declaring variables with my, has a lot
 of duplicate code, using "none" instead of undef). I get this one is
 imported and the goal is not to cleanup all imported code, but I believe
 it would be worth a note to either port it to python sometime or clean
 this one up.

 I added a brief comment about the code origin and possible future changes.
 As you said, furhter changes, if we want to do it, would be beyond the
 scope of this ticket.

 >  - The last line of the test is kind of confusing. It starts with E:
 which probably means End, but I thought it was error for a while. I had to
 examine the exit code to see it terminated successfully.

 Hmm, I agree 'E' is confusing.  But I'd keep it for now to be
 compatible with BIND 9's framework as much as possible (e.g. there may
 be a post-processing script that assumes this notation and we may want
 to reuse it without modifying it).  For that matter, some other
 notations are not clear to me (I don't know what "A" or "I" actually
 means, for example).  I think we should clarify (as a separate task)
 these with BIND 9 developers, and if agreed, update the both notations
 in a consistent manner.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/606#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development