Code review comment for lp://staging/~bloodearnest/canonical-identity-provider/sso-dev

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Daniel Manrique
<email address hidden> wrote:
> Poke... what's the status on this? Simon, could I at least request, if feasible, for you to merge trunk into this?

Done. All tests passing.

> I did so but there was a (minor) conflict, I think I solved it well enough that my local copy is working but I'd be more at ease if I knew you did the right thing while merging :)

Yep, it was just bzr merge failing hard on trivial changes, for
unknown reasons :)

> The actual reason I'm asking is this: I tried running acceptance tests in my old-style lxc setup and failed miserably. The set of config directives I used to just inject in my ../local_config/settings.py no longer "just works", and after spending a couple of hours trying, I gave up and decided to give sso-dev another whirl. Acceptance tests worked magically out of the box. So I'm wondering if perhaps the work done to remove the settings-by-symlink workflow broke the old way of doing acceptance testing.

Hmm, it shouldn't have. ../local_config/settings.py is still used, but
just via PYTHONPATH, not a symlink. I did test the acceptances tests
with that change, with out issue. I will try again.

However, the old way of running acceptance tests (via run-tests and
scripts/acceptance-tests) mv's ../local_config/settings.py out of the
way, writes its own version there, runs the server and tests, and then
copies back your old settings.py. So, to my knowledge, you've never
been able to manually tweak ../local_config/settings.py when running
tests this way.

However, if you run the server yourself manually, and run the tests
separately with make run-acceptance, then your local settings.py is
used (and you'll need to have the acceptance relations

The sso-dev work removes all this complexity. The is now no difference
between devel settings and the acceptance tests settings, so no file
mv'ing needed. It also already has an sso server and mail server
running, so everything is much simpler when it comes to running

> Does this make sense to you? What do I need to do now in order to run acceptance tests locally? OTOH if it's easier to just use sso-dev, that's fair enough, but we'd need to push for this to land so that people wanting to run acceptance aren't left in the same limbo as me (or I was just being extra dumb today - always a possibility, particularly on Mondays).

I would like to land, but still waiting on review approval, there's
some outstanding comments. I will ask Natalia to have a look again.

> Thanks and apologies for the rant!

No worries - sorry it's not landed yet :(

--
Simon