From dbeb44eeda74cd33757eadcafaa78c78319ba8cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:56:22 +0000
Subject: r12066: - add a unique,active,owner vs. unique,active,replica tests
 where   we respond with the replicas address to the challenge - fix some skip
 checks

metze
(This used to be commit a37aaa93cb25c559b27f4c1a7c48285d4223b9aa)
---
 source4/torture/nbt/winsreplication.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

(limited to 'source4/torture/nbt/winsreplication.c')

diff --git a/source4/torture/nbt/winsreplication.c b/source4/torture/nbt/winsreplication.c
index 3963f0adb0..fe3df13581 100644
--- a/source4/torture/nbt/winsreplication.c
+++ b/source4/torture/nbt/winsreplication.c
@@ -8489,7 +8489,7 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 	{
 		.line	= __location__,
 		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_MA_MA_SM_U", 0x00, NULL),
-		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_mhomed_num != 2),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_mhomed_num < 2),
 		.wins	= {
 			.nb_flags	= 0,
 			.mhomed		= True,
@@ -8516,7 +8516,7 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 	{
 		.line	= __location__,
 		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_MA_MA_SB_P", 0x00, NULL),
-		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_mhomed_num != 2),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_mhomed_num < 2),
 		.wins	= {
 			.nb_flags	= 0,
 			.mhomed		= True,
@@ -8576,7 +8576,7 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 	{
 		.line	= __location__,
 		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_MA_MA_SB_PRA", 0x00, NULL),
-		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 3),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 2),
 		.wins	= {
 			.nb_flags	= 0,
 			.mhomed		= True,
@@ -8608,7 +8608,7 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 		.line	= __location__,
 		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_MA_MA_SB_O", 0x00, NULL),
 
-		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 3),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 2),
 		.wins	= {
 			.nb_flags	= 0,
 			.mhomed		= True,
@@ -8638,7 +8638,7 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 	{
 		.line	= __location__,
 		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_MA_MA_SB_N", 0x00, NULL),
-		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_mhomed_num != 2),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_mhomed_num < 2),
 		.wins	= {
 			.nb_flags	= 0,
 			.mhomed		= True,
@@ -8670,7 +8670,7 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 		.line	= __location__,
 		.section= "Test Replica vs. owned active: some more UNIQUE,MHOMED combinations",
 		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_MA_UA_SB_P", 0x00, NULL),
-		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 3),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 2),
 		.wins	= {
 			.nb_flags	= 0,
 			.mhomed		= True,
@@ -8692,6 +8692,39 @@ static BOOL test_conflict_owned_active_vs_replica(struct test_wrepl_conflict_con
 			.mhomed_merge	= True
 		},
 	},
+	/*
+	 * unique,active vs. unique,active with different ip(s), positive response, with replicas address
+	 * TODO: check why the server sends a name release demand for one address?
+	 *       the release demand has no effect to the database record...
+	 */
+	{
+		.line	= __location__,
+		.name	= _NBT_NAME("_UA_UA_DI_PRA", 0x00, NULL),
+		.skip	= (ctx->addresses_all_num < 2),
+		.wins	= {
+			.nb_flags	= 0,
+			.mhomed		= False,
+			.num_ips	= ctx->addresses_best_num,
+			.ips		= ctx->addresses_best,
+			.apply_expected	= True
+		},
+		.defend	= {
+			.timeout	= 10,
+			.positive	= True,
+			.num_ips	= ctx->addresses_best2_num,
+			.ips		= ctx->addresses_best2,
+			.late_release	= True
+		},
+		.replica= {
+			.type		= WREPL_TYPE_UNIQUE,
+			.state		= WREPL_STATE_ACTIVE,
+			.node		= WREPL_NODE_B,
+			.is_static	= False,
+			.num_ips	= ctx->addresses_best2_num,
+			.ips		= ctx->addresses_best2,
+			.apply_expected	= False,
+		},
+	},
 	/*
 	 * unique,active vs. unique,active with different ip(s), positive response, with all addresses
 	 */
-- 
cgit