topology: Introduce KnownTopology.ADForest

[jakub-vavra-cz]

topology: Introduce KnownTopology.ADForest
Using: Cursor

Depends on: SSSD/sssd-ci-containers#216

[thalman]

LGTM

[danlavu]

There is a much better way to do this, and I think you'll see the value in what I'm proposing: Let's run three clients.

• All three domains run in one test — no leave/rejoin churn
• Three small containers is cheap — seconds to boot, no real cost
• No static join fixtures, no repeated join/teardown code
• Controller stops being a no-op — it owns the joins in topology_setup
• Role subclasses for child and tree make the domain hierarchy explicit

I really do not like the static code; if we need to add more, it's just going to get complicated. I think the role subclasses are the way to go. WYDT?

[danlavu]

I had AI draft up some changes. I still don't like the GPO stuff, but I understand why you have to clean it up now. Take a look at #279. I haven't tested it yet, but I'd like to figure out how we want to proceed before I spend any more time on it. We should probably just hop on a meeting call and hash this out.

[jakub-vavra-cz]

There is a much better way to do this, and I think you'll see the value in what I'm proposing: Let's run three clients.

* All three domains run in one test — no leave/rejoin churn

* Three small containers is cheap — seconds to boot, no real cost

Nope these are three standalone VMs with setup, these are 2 new containers with names, dns records IPs and build for each supported os in upstreanm ci.

* No static join fixtures, no repeated join/teardown code

* Controller stops being a no-op — it owns the joins in topology_setup

* Role subclasses for child and tree make the domain hierarchy explicit

I really do not like the static code; if we need to add more, it's just going to get complicated. I think the role subclasses are the way to go. WYDT?

Hi @danlavu ,
I am strongly opposed to running three clients. We are trying to cut down testing and footprint in cloud.
I can't even imagine what will get completely screwed up by having three clients on ci-containers and framework level.
I already spent hours and hours (especially stuck/broken gpo linking) on this and I am not fond of idea of redoing this as it is at best tier2 testing.

AFAIK it would make more sense to have three separate ad forest topologies for machine in child/root/tree and do the joining/leaving in topology setup/teardown once. This discussion should have happened before implemented all of this though.

Afaik if You want to experiment with topologies do so but as a refactoring atfer this ii merged.

[danlavu]

Okay, dropping my draft. Yes, this discussion should have happened before. I don't like the static fixtures. I know you did a lot of work on this already, and I'm absolutely willing to contribute. I just want to rework the helper fixtures; everything else is fine.

[jakub-vavra-cz]

I have moved the fixtures to tests and kept only necessary parts here. I am re-running tests, but this should be g2g.

[danlavu]

EDITED: I overlooked the auto-formatting changes; please revert them, and I'll approve.

I overlooked the auto formatting changes, please revert them and I'll approve.

[danlavu]

tox/black is not configured the same as the repo; there are a lot of unrelated formatting changes. Please revert them. If we need to, we can change the formatting in another PR and there is a line with extra indentation. Other than that, it looks great, thanks.

[jakub-vavra-cz]

Reverted the indentation changes and fixed the wrong indent as well.

[danlavu]

Looks good, thank you!