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        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:8 jinmei]:
 > 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).

 On the other hand, if the directory is not writable, but the file is
 (prepared for the process), the simple version works, while this one
 doesn't.

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

 I think for the sake of simplicity, we might want to remove it.

 > >  - 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.

 Or add a documentation about what they mean somewhere, at last.

 Anyway, the make distcheck still fails for me :-(. This time when it tries
 to distclean:

 {{{
 make[3]: Entering directory
 `/home/vorner/work/bind10/bind10-devel-20110224/_build/tests/system'
 rm -rf .libs _libs
 rm -f *.lo
 test -z "conf.sh" || rm -f conf.sh
 sh ../../../tests/system/cleanall.sh
 sh: ../../../tests/system/cleanall.sh: No such file or directory
 make[3]: *** [distclean-local] Error 127
 make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
 test . = "../../../tests/system" || test -z "" || rm -f
 make[3]: Leaving directory
 `/home/vorner/work/bind10/bind10-devel-20110224/_build/tests/system'
 make[2]: *** [distclean-recursive] Error 1
 make[2]: Leaving directory
 `/home/vorner/work/bind10/bind10-devel-20110224/_build/tests'
 make[1]: *** [distclean-recursive] Error 1
 make[1]: Leaving directory
 `/home/vorner/work/bind10/bind10-devel-20110224/_build'
 make: *** [distcheck] Error 1
 }}}

 The clenall.sh file isn't included in distribution (well, it seams nearly
 nothing is included).

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