Bug #2558
closed
(ex PT/ Technique) User Management: The fullname of the user is only set at creation. It will not be updated or checked.
Description
If I create a user without fullname and change the Technique to update its name to 'Brandon', it will return success even if userQA1 has no fullname. It will be the same if the fullname is wrong.
Furthermore, checking a user with a wrong fullname will return success too.
it seems that fullname is never checked or updated.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- Status changed from New to In progress
Full name is not checked and only set at creation with an argument to useradd.
Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 12 years ago
- Target version changed from 2.3.8 to 2.3.9
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
- Status changed from In progress to Pending technical review
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Now, fullname is checked and changed if defined in the Technique
Updated by Matthieu CERDA over 12 years ago
Well it looks correct, I approve.
BUT !
I have to little objections:- You are editing /etc/passwd, which means your implementation is Linux and some BSDs-centric.
- Editing /etc/passwd is quite dangerous, we should test this thoroughly.
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
Matthieu CERDA wrote:
Well it looks correct, I approve.
BUT !
I have to little objections:
- You are editing /etc/passwd, which means your implementation is Linux and some BSDs-centric.
Actually, we are concentrated on Linux implementation since Windows implimentation is quite wonky.
- Editing /etc/passwd is quite dangerous, we should test this thoroughly.
How can we test /etc/passwd ? The previous use of this Technique didn't made any check on /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow or /etc/group
Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 12 years ago
Nicolas PERRON wrote:
Matthieu CERDA wrote:
Well it looks correct, I approve.
BUT !
I have to little objections:
- You are editing /etc/passwd, which means your implementation is Linux and some BSDs-centric.
Actually, we are concentrated on Linux implementation since Windows implimentation is quite wonky.
- Editing /etc/passwd is quite dangerous, we should test this thoroughly.
How can we test /etc/passwd ? The previous use of this Technique didn't made any check on /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow or /etc/group
Please make a new issue about a new implementation.
Updated by Matthieu CERDA over 12 years ago
I do not think a new issue is useful, I just wanted to point out that editing /etc/passwd is a thing that should be tested functionally, not in the PT.
About the Windows support, yep should keep it in mind, but it is obviously not currently on schedule.
Updated by Nicolas CHARLES about 12 years ago
- Status changed from Pending technical review to Released
This looks valid. However, I wonder if it might not have been a bit more cfenginesque to use the bundle edit_line set_colon_field of the stdlib, and define classes in the files: promises part rather than in the bundle edit_line