You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com> on 2014/05/12 14:04:20 UTC
[QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Hello,
I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual
machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
The test case *test_03_grant_account_vm *which is to validate the below
mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts
(account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
# Validate the following
# 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
# 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and
account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
--
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard Availability
Services, India*
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com ▪
www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
*[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
*[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*
<http://blog.sungardas.com/> *[image:
cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]* <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
*[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
*[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
*CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.
Assuming the order in which test cases should run is not a good practice. Every test case should do the setup required for it and also the teardown once its done so that it leaves the system clean in the same state it started with.
This also helps in easy understanding of what is being tested.
I think we should file a bug for this and fix it.
~Rajani
On 12-May-2014, at 10:16 pm, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>> wrote:
Hi Sonal,
That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B. At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting, so it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can see 3 VMs.
Thanks
-min
From: Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>>
Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
To: Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>>
Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Hello,
I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts (account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
# Validate the following
# 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
# 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability Services, India
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪ www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
<http://www.sungardas.com/>
<http://blog.sungardas.com/> <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts> <https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services> <https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>.
I have written test case for Volume to setup and clean at each test
scenario, and I am facing issues while granting permissions at account
scope (it works fine at domain scope). Its giving an assertion error at 2.
1. Grant account_1A Volume access to account_1B
2. listVolumes command should return account_1A and account_1B Volumes
-- *instead
of listing two volumes it returns only one volume for account_1B.*
Is this a bug or am I doing something unexpected?? For reference I am
attaching the test case and the runinfo logs.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>wrote:
> I would need permission to assign
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6638 task to myself ,
> can someone help me on that??
>
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>wrote:
>
>> I agree to the point.
>>
>> On other note, to what all resources permissions could be granted?
>> I was writing test case for Volume entity type with the scenario to grant
>> allow permission for volume resource on an account. But, it didnt gave the
>> expected results.
>>
>> Do we have a list of such resources??
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that is a good point. We can fix test cases to revoke grant at tear
>>> down of each test case.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -min
>>>
>>> On 5/12/14 9:21 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <Ra...@citrix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Assuming the order in which test cases should run is not a good
>>> practice.
>>> >Every test case should do the setup required for it and also the
>>> teardown
>>> >once its done so that it leaves the system clean in the same state it
>>> >started with.
>>> >This also helps in easy understanding of what is being tested.
>>> >I think we should file a bug for this and fix it.
>>> >
>>> >~Rajani
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On 12-May-2014, at 10:16 pm, Min Chen
>>> ><mi...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Hi Sonal,
>>> >
>>> >That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after
>>> >test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B.
>>> >At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting,
>>> so
>>> >it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in
>>> >test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can
>>> see
>>> >3 VMs.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks
>>> >-min
>>> >
>>> >From: Sonal Ojha
>>> ><so...@sungardas.com>>
>>> >Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
>>> >To: Prachi Damle
>>> ><Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen
>>> ><mi...@citrix.com>>
>>> >Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>>> ><de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>>> >Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
>>> >
>>> >Hello,
>>> >
>>> >I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual
>>> >machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
>>> >
>>> >The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below
>>> >mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts
>>> >(account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
>>> >
>>> ># Validate the following
>>> > # 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
>>> > # 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
>>> >
>>> >Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and
>>> >account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Thanks and Regards,
>>> >Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability
>>> >Services, India
>>> >2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411
>>> 014
>>> >▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪
>>> >sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪
>>> >www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
>>> ><http://www.sungardas.com/>
>>> ><http://blog.sungardas.com/> <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
>>> ><https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
>>> ><https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
>>> ><http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
>>> ><https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
>>> >CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
>>> >confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
>>> >disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
>>> >please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Thanks and Regards,*
>>
>> *Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard
>> Availability Services, India*
>>
>> 2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
>> Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com
>> ▪ www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
>>
>> *[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
>> *[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://blog.sungardas.com/>
>> *[image: cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
>> *[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
>> *[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
>> *[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
>> *[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
>> *CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
>> confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
>> disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
>> please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Thanks and Regards,*
>
> *Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard
> Availability Services, India*
>
> 2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
> Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com
> ▪ www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
>
> *[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
> *[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]* <http://blog.sungardas.com/>
> *[image: cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
> *[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
> *[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
> *[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
> *[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
> confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
> disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
> please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
--
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard Availability
Services, India*
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com ▪
www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
*[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
*[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*
<http://blog.sungardas.com/> *[image:
cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]* <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
*[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
*[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
*CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>.
I would need permission to assign
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6638 task to myself , can
someone help me on that??
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>wrote:
> I agree to the point.
>
> On other note, to what all resources permissions could be granted?
> I was writing test case for Volume entity type with the scenario to grant
> allow permission for volume resource on an account. But, it didnt gave the
> expected results.
>
> Do we have a list of such resources??
>
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is a good point. We can fix test cases to revoke grant at tear
>> down of each test case.
>>
>> Thanks
>> -min
>>
>> On 5/12/14 9:21 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Assuming the order in which test cases should run is not a good practice.
>> >Every test case should do the setup required for it and also the teardown
>> >once its done so that it leaves the system clean in the same state it
>> >started with.
>> >This also helps in easy understanding of what is being tested.
>> >I think we should file a bug for this and fix it.
>> >
>> >~Rajani
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 12-May-2014, at 10:16 pm, Min Chen
>> ><mi...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi Sonal,
>> >
>> >That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after
>> >test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B.
>> >At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting, so
>> >it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in
>> >test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can see
>> >3 VMs.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >-min
>> >
>> >From: Sonal Ojha
>> ><so...@sungardas.com>>
>> >Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
>> >To: Prachi Damle
>> ><Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen
>> ><mi...@citrix.com>>
>> >Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>> ><de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> >Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
>> >
>> >Hello,
>> >
>> >I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual
>> >machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
>> >
>> >The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below
>> >mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts
>> >(account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
>> >
>> ># Validate the following
>> > # 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
>> > # 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
>> >
>> >Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and
>> >account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Thanks and Regards,
>> >Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability
>> >Services, India
>> >2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014
>> >▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪
>> >sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪
>> >www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
>> ><http://www.sungardas.com/>
>> ><http://blog.sungardas.com/> <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
>> ><https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
>> ><https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
>> ><http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
>> ><https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
>> >CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
>> >confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
>> >disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
>> >please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Thanks and Regards,*
>
> *Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard
> Availability Services, India*
>
> 2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
> Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com
> ▪ www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
>
> *[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
> *[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]* <http://blog.sungardas.com/>
> *[image: cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
> *[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
> *[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
> *[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
> *[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
> confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
> disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
> please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
>
--
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard Availability
Services, India*
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com ▪
www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
*[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
*[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*
<http://blog.sungardas.com/> *[image:
cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]* <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
*[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
*[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
*CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>.
I agree to the point.
On other note, to what all resources permissions could be granted?
I was writing test case for Volume entity type with the scenario to grant
allow permission for volume resource on an account. But, it didnt gave the
expected results.
Do we have a list of such resources??
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Yes, that is a good point. We can fix test cases to revoke grant at tear
> down of each test case.
>
> Thanks
> -min
>
> On 5/12/14 9:21 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >Assuming the order in which test cases should run is not a good practice.
> >Every test case should do the setup required for it and also the teardown
> >once its done so that it leaves the system clean in the same state it
> >started with.
> >This also helps in easy understanding of what is being tested.
> >I think we should file a bug for this and fix it.
> >
> >~Rajani
> >
> >
> >
> >On 12-May-2014, at 10:16 pm, Min Chen
> ><mi...@citrix.com>> wrote:
> >
> >Hi Sonal,
> >
> >That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after
> >test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B.
> >At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting, so
> >it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in
> >test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can see
> >3 VMs.
> >
> >Thanks
> >-min
> >
> >From: Sonal Ojha
> ><so...@sungardas.com>>
> >Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
> >To: Prachi Damle
> ><Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen
> ><mi...@citrix.com>>
> >Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
> ><de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> >Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual
> >machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
> >
> >The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below
> >mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts
> >(account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
> >
> ># Validate the following
> > # 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
> > # 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
> >
> >Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and
> >account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
> >
> >--
> >Thanks and Regards,
> >Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability
> >Services, India
> >2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014
> >▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪
> >sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪
> >www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
> ><http://www.sungardas.com/>
> ><http://blog.sungardas.com/> <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
> ><https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
> ><https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
> ><http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
> ><https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
> >CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
> >confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
> >disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
> >please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
> >
>
>
--
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development **▪ **Sungard Availability
Services, India*
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪
Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com ▪
www.sungardas. <http://www.sungardas.com/>*in*
*[image: Logo]* <http://www.sungardas.com/>
*[image: cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*
<http://blog.sungardas.com/> *[image:
cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]* <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
*[image: cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
*[image: cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
*[image: cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]*<https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
*CONFIDENTIALITY:* This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>.
Yes, that is a good point. We can fix test cases to revoke grant at tear
down of each test case.
Thanks
-min
On 5/12/14 9:21 PM, "Rajani Karuturi" <Ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
>Assuming the order in which test cases should run is not a good practice.
>Every test case should do the setup required for it and also the teardown
>once its done so that it leaves the system clean in the same state it
>started with.
>This also helps in easy understanding of what is being tested.
>I think we should file a bug for this and fix it.
>
>~Rajani
>
>
>
>On 12-May-2014, at 10:16 pm, Min Chen
><mi...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>
>Hi Sonal,
>
>That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after
>test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B.
>At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting, so
>it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in
>test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can see
>3 VMs.
>
>Thanks
>-min
>
>From: Sonal Ojha
><so...@sungardas.com>>
>Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
>To: Prachi Damle
><Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen
><mi...@citrix.com>>
>Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
><de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
>
>Hello,
>
>I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual
>machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
>
>The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below
>mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts
>(account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
>
># Validate the following
> # 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
> # 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
>
>Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and
>account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
>
>--
>Thanks and Regards,
>Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability
>Services, India
>2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014
>▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪
>sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪
>www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
><http://www.sungardas.com/>
><http://blog.sungardas.com/> <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS>
><https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts>
><https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS>
><http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services>
><https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
>CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
>confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized
>disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,
>please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.
Assuming the order in which test cases should run is not a good practice. Every test case should do the setup required for it and also the teardown once its done so that it leaves the system clean in the same state it started with.
This also helps in easy understanding of what is being tested.
I think we should file a bug for this and fix it.
~Rajani
On 12-May-2014, at 10:16 pm, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>> wrote:
Hi Sonal,
That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B. At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting, so it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can see 3 VMs.
Thanks
-min
From: Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>>
Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
To: Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>>
Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Hello,
I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts (account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
# Validate the following
# 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
# 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability Services, India
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪ www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
<http://www.sungardas.com/>
<http://blog.sungardas.com/> <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts> <https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services> <https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.
Re: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Posted by Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>.
Hi Sonal,
That is because test_03_grant_account_vm is running after test_02_grant_domain_vm, where we have granted domain2 VM to account_1B. At the end of test_02_grant_domain_vm, we didn't revoke this granting, so it will still take effect in test_03_grant_account_vm. Therefore, in test_03, account_1B should have two grants effective, and thus he can see 3 VMs.
Thanks
-min
From: Sonal Ojha <so...@sungardas.com>>
Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 5:04 AM
To: Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen <mi...@citrix.com>>
Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: [QUERY] [IAM TEST CASE] Vritual Machine IAM test scenarios
Hello,
I have a small query regarding the sample test case written for virtual machine entity type for the IAM plugin.
The test case test_03_grant_account_vm which is to validate the below mentioned scenarios is returning vms for all the three accounts (account_1A, account_1B and account_2A) as the list_vm_response.
# Validate the following
# 1. Grant account_1A VM access to account_1B
# 2. listVM command should return account_1A and account_1B VMs.
Shouldn't it be returning vms for the two accounts (account_1A and account_1B)? Kindly help to understand this scenario.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Sonal Ojha ▪ Sr.Engineer - Product Development ▪ Sungard Availability Services, India
2nd Floor, Wing 4, Cluster D, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Pune - 411 014 ▪ Office: 267-234-9014 ▪ Mobile: +91 9922412645 ▪ sonal.ojha@sungardas.com<ma...@sungardas.com> ▪ www.sungardas.<http://www.sungardas.com/>in
[Logo]<http://www.sungardas.com/>
[cid:image019.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0]<http://blog.sungardas.com/> [cid:image020.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0] <http://www.youtube.com/user/SunGardAS> [cid:image021.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/102459878242108588663/posts> [cid:image022.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0] <https://www.facebook.com/SunGardAS> [cid:image023.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/sungard-availability-services> [cid:image024.png@01CF48EC.6617C7F0] <https://twitter.com/SunGardAS>
CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.