Relax assertion in test_exec_as_nonexistent_user #1409
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR contains:
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
The sandbox behaviour isn't especially well defined for when the specified user for exec isn't found. The existing self_check test is overly coupled to the existing Docker implementation.
What is the new behavior?
I think it's good enough to insist the exec returns failure, and that the erroneous username is somewhere in the result stdout/stderr. So the test is relaxed a bit in this PR.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
Other information: