| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Signed-off-by: Rob van der Linde <rob@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Douglas Bagnall <douglas.bagnall@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
[abartlet@samba.org Some python2 style super() calls remain due
to being an actual, even if reasonable, behaviour change]
|
|
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schneider <asn@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
|
|
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13834
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
|
|
The smbd changes the umask - if the code fails to restore the umask to
what it was, then this is very bad. Add an extra check to every
smbd-related test that the umask at the end of the test is the same as
what it was at the beginning (i.e. if the smbd code changed the umask
then it correctly restored the value afterwards).
As the selftest sets the umask for all tests to zero, it makes it hard
to detect this problem, so the test setUp() needs to set it to something
else first.
This extra checking is added to the setUp()/tearDown() so that it
applies to all test-cases. However, any failure that occur with this
approach will not be able to be known-failed.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13834
Signed-off-by: Tim Beale <timbeale@catalyst.net.nz>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
|
