Tag Archives: OperationValidation

Verify GroupMembership with Pester

‘Sup PSHomies,

Here’s another advantage of adding members with a different approach, Pester validation!

This makes for an easy way to process validation of  each member of a group.

Quick update: I’ve added  some extra code (at the end of the previous blog code) to export added- and revoked members.

#region Export for futher processing
$GroupMembers =@{
  Groups  = $Header
  Added   = $addADGroupMembers
  Revoked = $delADGroupMembers
}
$GroupMembers |
Export-Clixml .\export\dsa\ADGroupMembers-$exportDate.xml -Encoding UTF8
#endregion

Quick rundown, first we’ll import the saved object and used that to get a snapshot of the current group members. Then it’s time to vaildate who has been added or revoked.

adgroupmemberresults

In this case I wanted to generate different Describe blocks. This makes for a better distribution in the HTML report.

adgroupmembernunithtml

Here’s the code to generate the HTML report using reportunit.exe

#region
$exportDate = Get-Date -Format ddMMyyyy
#endregion

#region Main
$pesterGroupMembers = Invoke-Pester .\ps1\dsa\ADGroupMembers*  -OutputFile .\export\dsa\ADGroupMembers.NUnit.xml -OutputFormat NUnitXml -PassThru

#run reportunit against ADgroupMembers.NUnit.xml and display result in browser
& .\tools\ReportUnit\reportunit.exe .\export\dsa\ADGroupMembers.NUnit.xml
Invoke-Item .\export\dsa\ADGroupMembers.NUnit.html

#Export Pester results to xml
$pesterGroupMembers | Export-Clixml .\export\dsa\PesterResults-GroupMembers-$($exportDate).xml -Encoding UTF8
#endregion

Making sure a user is a member can be tricky at times especially when the members list is a few hundred.

As always, snapshots are your friend! When I exported the groups the first time I did it without validating if they existed. I recently ran into a situation where AD Objects were being deleted and recreated using the same SamAccountName! So having a little more information than just the SamAccountName can help when troubleshooting now and in the future.

When my project manager asked for logs and I handed him the HTML generated report of the group members… You should have seen the glee on his face!

So there you have it, verfying group membership using Pester!

Hope it’s worth something to you…

Ttyl,

Urv

Advertisements

Operational Readiness validation gotchas

Sup’ PSHomies,

Back from the PSConfEu 2016 in Hannover! It was awesome!!! It was great meeting so many in person! I highly recommend attending a conference if ever given the chance! Tobias did a great job organizing PSConfEU 2016!

The presentations were top notch! Two presentations I definitely wanted to follow were June Blenders’ Real world Pester TDD tests & Ravikanth Chaganti Operations Validation Framework. I enjoyed Ravikanth’s approach: a simplistic and a comprehensive test. June’s presentation was insightful! There were definitely a few aha moments for me! So I decided to re-evaluate what I had learned so far now that I’ve seen how it should be done! 😉 .

Simplistic tests

Think of simplistic tests as kicking the tires. Here’s where the obvious tests go:

  • Are the sets aligned?
  • Did the object count meet your expectation?

Things of that nature. Here are some tests to help you understand some gotcha moments.

Validating the count seems pretty straight forward right? Well, not always… I’ll explain…

When the sets to validate are identical validation is pretty straight forward. This is the best case scenario. I did one validation with and without Group-Object (I’ll explain later on).

Simplistic Identical sets - Count

Simplistic Indentical sets

By using Group-Object I can get the “real” count of a set. Group-Object will gauge the uniqueness of the set, but I also found a test where that might not always be useful… So my next test was to omit an entry from the Verify set

Simplistic Missing entry sets - Count

Simplistic missing an entry in Verify

The test failed as it should. Now for some fun, let’s add a double entry to the Verify set.

 

Simplistic Double entry sets - CountThis is an odd test, it could be a typo. Imagine having a list where double entries aren’t that obvious, this should catch it. Now ideally you’d use your source code that you used during deployment. I’m assuming you did automate your process eh? 😉 Without the Group-Object the count is identical. With Group-Object you only have one entry! This could explain an exception happened during deployment… Accidents will happen…

The last test is a fun one: different sets.

Simplistic Different sets - Count

Different sets

Surprise! Both validation count test passed, but the sets are totally different!

Bonus Test!

Simplistic Different sets double entry - Count

Different set with a double entry

This one almost got away. While doing the comprehensive test, it dawned on me that I should be testing both counts, with and without Group-Object. I updated the screenshot accordingly.

Take away Simplistic test:

Don’t only rely the count of a set. By using Group-Object you can gauge a set’s uniqueness. The bonus test showed that exceptions may happen. It’s totally valid as a starting point, that’s why it’s a simplistic tests. Here’s the code for the Simplistic test for count validation:

$savedADConfig= @{
   GlobalCatalogs = @(
      'DC-DSC-01.pshirwin.local'
      'DC-DSC-02.pshirwin.local'
   )
}

$verifyADConfig= @{
   GlobalCatalogs = @(
      'DC-DSC-01.pshirwin.local'
      'DC-DSC-02.pshirwin.local'
   )
}

#region Example Operational validation Simplistic test
Describe 'Active Directory configuration operational readiness' {
   Context 'Verifying GlobalCatalogs count without Group-Object'{
      it 'Total GlobalCatalogs match' {
         @($savedADConfig.GlobalCatalogs).Count |
         Should be @($verifyADConfig.GlobalCatalogs).Count
      }
   }

   Context 'Verifying GlobalCatalogs count with Group-Object'{
      it 'Total GlobalCatalogs match' {
         @($savedADConfig.GlobalCatalogs  | Group-Object).Count |
         Should be @($verifyADConfig.GlobalCatalogs | Group-Object).Count
      }
   }
}
#endregion

If you’d like to try out the simplistic tests just add/remove entries to the saved-/verifyADConfig sets. Now for the Comprehensive tests!

Comprehensive tests

Here’s where in-depth analysis goes. When I did the AD Operational Readiness test, I had a feeling I was missing something. I saw June using sort-object in one of her validations. That triggered me to re-valuate this test.

Comprehensive Identical sets

Comprehensive Identical sets

Depending on which set you used for your enumeration you could end up with different results. When the sets are identical, all goes well. Next test, omit an entry in Verify set.

Comprehensive Missing an entry

Comprehensive missing an entry

Enumerating from the saved test caught the missing entry, enumerating from verify didn’t. Both found ‘DC-DSC-01.pshirwin.local’. The simplistic test caught this, that is why you need both! Next up: Double entry in Verify.

Comprehensive Double entry

Comprehensive double entry in verify

Enumerating from the saved set caught the double entry. Enumerating from the verify set just enumerated the entry twice. If you’re visually inclined, you might miss this.

Hey all my tests results are green and purple! Yeah…

Last test: Different sets.

Comprehensive Different sets

Different sets

At this point you’re comparing apple with oranges. This should fail.

Take away comprehensive tests:

The set you’re enumerating from matters! To cover validation, best bet is to do both! Here’s the code for the Comprehensive Test:

#region Example Operational validation Comprehensive test
$savedADConfig= @{
   GlobalCatalogs = @(
      'DC-DSC-01.pshirwin.local'
      'DC-DSC-02.pshirwin.local'
   )
}

$verifyADConfig= @{
   GlobalCatalogs = @(
      'DC-DSC-01.pshirwin.local'
      'DC-DSC-02.pshirwin.local'
   )
}

Describe 'Active Directory configuration operational readiness' {
   Context 'Verifying GlobalCatalogs enumerating from saved configuration'{
      $savedADConfig.GlobalCatalogs |
      ForEach-Object{
         it "Server $($_) is a GlobalCatalog"{
            $verifyADConfig.GlobalCatalogs.Contains($_) |
            Should be $true
         }
      }
   }
   Context 'Verifying GlobalCatalogs enumerating from verify configuration'{
      $verifyADConfig.GlobalCatalogs |
      ForEach-Object{
         it "Server $($_) is a GlobalCatalog"{
            $savedADConfig.GlobalCatalogs.Contains($_) |
            Should be $true
         }
      }
   }
}
#endregion

Validation is great, but you need to make sure your validating with the right set in the right order!

Summary

  • Create Simplistic & Comprehensive tests.
  • Simplistic tests should take care of the obvious.
  • Comprehensive tests is where in-depth analysis takes place.
  • Validate by enumerating from both sets!
  • Never trust a test that doesn’t fail 😉

I’m glad I visited both presentations! Now it’s time to update my Operational readiness tests accordingly! 🙂

Hope it’s worth something to you

Ttyl,

Urv

Pester to validate ADUser properties

‘Sup PSHomies,

See if you can relate. You’re in the middle of a migration, the users need to be created asap. You get a xlsx file with all the necessary properties. A quick Copy/Paste to csv file, Import-Csv  user.csv -Delimiter "`t" | New-ADUser and presto! Whew! Glad we got that out of the way 😉

Feels pretty awesome right? 15 minutes after, your project manager comes asking: “Say, which file did you use?” The one you sent me last week, why? “Uh, there’s a new version on sharepoint, did you use that one?” Well I did ask which file I should use (in my defense I did, that’s why I always email, written proof!). “Well there’s an updated version, could you make sure the users get updated? Thanks!!!” Sigh, here we go again…

At this point I can do two things:

  1. Just delete and recreate. Thing is you’ll loose SIDs and access to homedirectory etc etc. Not exactly ideal.
  2. Update the user properties. Definitely a better option. Still tricky especially using the Set-ADUser cmdlet, but that’s another story.

But before you go off to update the user settings, how about validating what has been changed? Maybe the damage isn’t that bad. I mean if it’s under five changes, I just might  do it manually… Oh who am I kidding? Wait, gimme a minute to catch my breathe from laughing! 😛

Enter Pester for ADUser validation!

With a Pester script to validate your ADUser settings, you’ll never have to second guess if the settings are as they should.

Here’s the result:ADPesterResults

Here’s a quick rundown of the script:

First I’ll just get all the user settings using $verify = Get-ADUser -Identity $user.SamAccountName -Properties *.

$ADPropertiesToVerify =  ($csvADUsers | Get-Member | Where-Object {$_.membertype -eq 'noteproperty'}).name will get me all the properties in the csv file. No need to map properties manually. Now I can loop through any amount of properties!

Next up, making sure empty properties get $null

if (([string]::isNullOrEmpty($user.$attribute))) {
   $user.$attribute = $null
}

$null isn’t equal to empty (Ofcourse you already knew that!)

Now compare what’s in the csv to what Get-ADUser found:

if($attribute -eq 'Path'){
   it "User is located in $($user.$attribute)" {
      $verify.DistinguishedName.Contains($user.$attribute)
   }
}
else{
   it "User property $($attribute) value is $($verify.$attribute)" {
      $user.$attribute | Should be $verify.$attribute
   }
}

Quick note: I used Path to create the user in a specific OU. There’s no Path property in Get-ADUser. So I did the next best thing, just verify that path is part of the user’s distinguishedname 😉

I also added a little bonus to verify the user’s homedirectory exists and that the user is also the owner.

Being able to validate will definitely give you peace of mind…

Hope it’s worth something to you

Ttyl,

Urv

Pester script to validate GPOs Scope of Management

So here’s another spin on using Pester to validate operational readiness… 😉

Group policies can be pretty tricky! Troubleshooting can be a challenge. There might be even times that you start doubting yourself. Depending on the link order of your Policies, you might not get what you expected…

Operations is dynamic, things get moved around, enabled/disabled, blocked, name it and it’s bound to happen.

How about… some way to validate your GPOs Scope of Management! Once everything is working as it should, create a validation set you can verify later on. Trust me, I’ve been there… Using Pester will definitely give you that edge…

So I improvised a little on Ashley’s McGlone’s GPO Report and made a function Get-GPOsSoM. Just be sure to save it in the same folder as Domain-GPOSoM.Tests.ps1

Now for the fun part! 🙂

So here’s the result:

Pester Test GPO SoM

Now Imagine someone changed your GPO link order:

Pester Test GPO Change Link Order

Run Pester test script again:

Pester Test GPO Change Link Order -Detected

No more doubt! The link order has been tampered with! This is definitely a game changer for Operations!

My new motto : “If you can automate it, you should test it” 😛

Pester for everyone!

Hope it’s worth something to you

Ttyl,

Urv