Bug 41650 – 61_udm-users/28_displayName_update randomly fails

Bug 41650 - 61_udm-users/28_displayName_update randomly fails


Summary:	61_udm-users/28_displayName_update randomly fails

Status:	CLOSED FIXED

Product:	UCS Test
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	UDM
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	Other Linux

Importance:	P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	Stefan Gohmann
QA Contact:

URL:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2016-06-23 13:04 CEST by Florian Best
Modified:	2023-03-25 06:41 CET (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
What kind of report is it?:	Development Internal
What type of bug is this?:	---
Who will be affected by this bug?:	---
How will those affected feel about the bug?:	---
User Pain:
Enterprise Customer affected?:
School Customer affected?:
ISV affected?:
Waiting Support:
Flags outvoted (downgraded) after PO Review:
Ticket number:
Bug group (optional):
Max CVSS v3 score:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Florian Best

2016-06-23 13:04:49 CEST

UCS 4.1-2
http://jenkins.knut.univention.de:8080/job/UCS-4.1/job/UCS-4.1-2/job/AutotestJoin/58/SambaVersion=s4,Systemrolle=master/testReport/junit/61_udm-users/28_displayName_update/history/

UCS 4.1-1
http://jenkins.knut.univention.de:8080/job/UCS-4.1/job/UCS-4.1-1/job/AutotestJoin/lastCompletedBuild/SambaVersion=s4,Systemrolle=master/testReport/61_udm-users/28_displayName_update/history/

Most often in line 28 (and some month ago in line 40)
utils.verify_ldap_object(userdn, {'displayName': ['%s %s' % (firstname2, lastname2)]})

But also one time in line 106:
utils.verify_ldap_object(userdn, {'displayName': ['%s %s' % (firstname4, lastname4)]})

Comment 1 Stefan Gohmann

2016-08-10 07:21:47 CEST

Since the S4 connector uses a object based synchronization, it is a problem to change the same object in short intervals, see Bug #35336. I've stopped the connector while running this test case.

Comment 2 Stefan Gohmann

2016-10-12 07:48:13 CEST

For this bug is no separate QA needed.