Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(pam/gdmmodel): Forward public AuthModeSelected to GDM #631

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 13, 2024

Conversation

3v1n0
Copy link
Collaborator

@3v1n0 3v1n0 commented Nov 13, 2024

authModeSelected event we were listening to is an event that may be
ignored or adjusted depending on authModeSelection model logic, so it's
what we should also expose to GDM.

We couldn't do that though since the event wasn't forwarded, so do it.

Also simplify user selection on GDM tests, by mimicking more what we really do.

It should help with flacky tests such as [1].

[1] https://github.com/ubuntu/authd/actions/runs/11802896113/job/32879602555?pr=583

UDENG-5261

Avoid repeating the same logic multiple times when we've to update
client-specific models
authModeSelected event we were listening to is an event that may be
ignored or adjusted depending on authModeSelection model logic, so it's
what we should also expose to GDM.

We couldn't do that though since the event wasn't forwarded, so do it.

It should help with flacky tests such as [1].

[1] https://github.com/ubuntu/authd/actions/runs/11802896113/job/32879602555?pr=583
@3v1n0 3v1n0 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 13, 2024 13:25
@3v1n0 3v1n0 marked this pull request as draft November 13, 2024 13:36
…ng daemon

We don't really support user-selection from the daemon, so it's not
worth to test it, while the user can be pre-set using PAM instead so
stress testing on this case instead.

As per this drop some duplicated tests we had (they were covered already
by "Broker selection stage caused by PAM user selection")
@3v1n0 3v1n0 force-pushed the gdm-auth-mode-selection-checked branch from c7821d7 to 75bdc48 Compare November 13, 2024 16:14
@3v1n0 3v1n0 marked this pull request as ready for review November 13, 2024 16:22
@3v1n0 3v1n0 requested a review from adombeck November 13, 2024 16:22
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.98%. Comparing base (93d8d06) to head (75bdc48).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #631      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.92%   82.98%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines        8589     8587       -2     
  Branches       75       75              
==========================================
+ Hits         7122     7126       +4     
+ Misses       1132     1130       -2     
+ Partials      335      331       -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@3v1n0 3v1n0 merged commit 7e8299d into ubuntu:main Nov 13, 2024
8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants