[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13741) possible AuditLogger bugs uncovered while hardening AuditLoggerIntegrationTest

["Jan Høydahl (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13741?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16932428#comment-16932428 ] 

Jan Høydahl commented on SOLR-13741:
------------------------------------

Thanks for taking a look at this. I see you have some great improvements on how to assert exceptions etc.

Wrt the REJECTED + UNAUTHORIZED events I see the same as you, and I believe there is a code bug, not a test bug. In HttpSolrCall#471 in the {{authorize()}} call, if authResponse == PROMPT, it will actually match both blocks and emit two audit events: [https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/26ede632e6259eb9d16861a3c0f782c9c8999762/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/servlet/HttpSolrCall.java#L475:L493] 
{code:java}
if (authResponse.statusCode == AuthorizationResponse.PROMPT.statusCode) {...}
if (!(authResponse.statusCode == HttpStatus.SC_ACCEPTED) && !(authResponse.statusCode == HttpStatus.SC_OK)) {...}
{code}
When code==401, it is also true that code!=200. Intuitively there should be both a sendErrora and return RETURN before line #484 in the first if block?

The first if block was introduced back in 2005 as part of SOLR-7757. [~noble.paul] why does the if not return? It will *always* fall through to and trigger the next if block!

> possible AuditLogger bugs uncovered while hardening AuditLoggerIntegrationTest
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-13741
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13741
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>            Reporter: Hoss Man
>            Assignee: Hoss Man
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: SOLR-13741.patch
>
>
> A while back i saw a weird non-reproducible failure from AuditLoggerIntegrationTest.  When i started reading through that code, 2 things jumped out at me:
> # the way the 'delay' option works is brittle, and makes assumptions about CPU scheduling that aren't neccessarily going to be true (and also suffers from the problem that Thread.sleep isn't garunteed to sleep as long as you ask it too)
> # the way the existing {{waitForAuditEventCallbacks(number)}} logic works by checking the size of a (List) {{buffer}} of recieved events in a sleep/poll loop, until it contains at least N items -- but the code that adds items to that buffer in the async Callback thread async _before_ the code that updates other state variables (like the global {{count}} and the patch specific {{resourceCounts}}) meaning that a test waiting on 3 events could "see" 3 events added to the buffer, but calling {{assertEquals(3, receiver.getTotalCount())}} could subsequently fail because that variable hadn't been udpated yet.
> #2 was the source of the failures I was seeing, and while a quick fix for that specific problem would be to update all other state _before_ adding the event to the buffer, I set out to try and make more general improvements to the test:
> * eliminate the dependency on sleep loops by {{await}}-ing on concurrent data structures
> * harden the assertions made about the expected events recieved (updating some test methods that currently just assert the number of events recieved)
> * add new assertions that _only_ the expected events are recieved.
> In the process of doing this, I've found several oddities/descrepencies between things the test currently claims/asserts, and what *actually* happens under more rigerous scrutiny/assertions.
> I'll attach a patch shortly that has my (in progress) updates and inlcudes copious nocommits about things seem suspect.  the summary of these concerns is:
> * SolrException status codes that do not match what the existing test says they should (but doesn't assert)
> * extra AuditEvents occuring that the existing test does not expect
> * AuditEvents for incorrect credentials that do not at all match the expected AuditEvent in the existing test -- which the current test seems to miss in it's assertions because it's picking up some extra events from triggered by previuos requests earlier in the test that just happen to also match the asserctions.
> ...it's not clear to me if the test logic is correct and these are "code bugs" or if the test is faulty.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org