-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 270
Tests: Adding GDM Passkey tests #8150
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request adds a comprehensive suite of system tests for GDM Passkey login functionality. The tests cover various scenarios, including login with PIN, without PIN, with password fallback, multiple keys, and handling of unregistered or removed passkeys.
My review has identified a few critical and high-severity issues that should be addressed:
- A
pytest.set_trace()call needs to be removed. - The use of
time.sleep()should be replaced with more robust polling mechanisms to avoid flaky tests. - Fragile shell commands for parsing
ipaoutput should be replaced with more stable API calls. - There's an incorrect usage of
assertwith a custom assertion method, which could lead to misleading test failures.
Overall, this is a valuable addition for ensuring the quality of the GDM Passkey feature. Addressing these points will improve the reliability and maintainability of the new tests.
2691304 to
4e3e389
Compare
4e3e389 to
6119206
Compare
ikerexxe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some minor comments inline
|
By the way, CI failures are related to your changes so review them as well |
f5d64b3 to
b854636
Compare
|
Hi @spoore1 would it be possible for you to add a GDM Passkey test with local (non-IPA) auth? |
c193edb to
eea3a7e
Compare
eea3a7e to
f2bf490
Compare
ikerexxe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does the test_gdm_doc.py file do? Is it some sort of extra documentation?
Apart from that I left several comments inline
97ef4a5 to
b3341f2
Compare
Sorry about the confusion here. It seems I ran a git add . instead of the specific file I was updating and brought in some extra files/notes I didn't intend to include here. I've removed them again from the commit now. |
b3341f2 to
302bd12
Compare
034996a to
882fe7c
Compare
jakub-vavra-cz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sss mhc.yaml comment
dbb1690 to
398172a
Compare
madhuriupadhye
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me; I plan to test this in IDM-CI.
ikerexxe
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM! Thank you for your hard work getting passkey tests for this feature
jakub-vavra-cz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
justin-stephenson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ack, thank you.
|
@spoore1, does this depend on product patches / PRs, that were not merged yet? |
|
C10S CI is red due to known issue: |
The new "bare" topologies are missing from the system tests' mhc.yaml file in provisioned_topologies. These need to be there for upstream CI tests to work with tests using those topologies. Reviewed-by: Iker Pedrosa <ipedrosa@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jakub Vávra <jvavra@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Madhuri Upadhye <mupadhye@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Iker Pedrosa <ipedrosa@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jakub Vávra <jvavra@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Justin Stephenson <jstephen@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Madhuri Upadhye <mupadhye@redhat.com>
398172a to
5635e5f
Compare
No description provided.