pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] proc pmda and QA question

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] proc pmda and QA question
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:54:46 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <520A98A7.6010603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <520A98A7.6010603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: NgcYqsAXRIJ1kzrBU+6NoF635WBqSg==
Thread-topic: proc pmda and QA question

----- Original Message -----
> In the brave new world, how do avoid the EPERM below?
> 
> $ pminfo -f proc.psinfo.ppid

My lame grep skillz are finding no tests that execute pminfo like that.
There are several tests which do notrun checks like this though:

022:pminfo proc.nprocs >/dev/null 2>&1 || _notrun "proc PMDA not installed"

(which doesn't require credentials)

> proc.psinfo.ppid
> Error: No permission to perform requested operation
> 
> This is causing some QA tests to be notrun when they should be being
> run, so perhaps these are not being classified as "failures".

022 is a good example of a test which handles this (and for both new and
older PCP versions, if that is still needed) ... 

# see if unix domain sockets are available (permissions)
unix_domain_sockets=false
eval `pmconfig -L 2>/dev/null`
target="-h localhost"
$unix_domain_sockets && target="-h unix:"
...
pminfo $target -F 


Which tests have I missed?  Or are we talking about the remote host tests
here?  IIRC, I promised a writeup on how to do that, then promptly failed
to deliver.  However test qa/823 exercises SASL authentication, and could
be used as the basis of such checking.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>