Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] gpg-interface t: extend the existing GPG tests with GPGSM

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:35:54 -0400
schrieb Jeff King [off-list ref]:

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 03:40:19PM +0200, Henning Schild wrote:

quoted

quoted

So it may be simplest to just run most of the tests twice, once
with gpg and once with gpgsm. I kind of wonder if all of t7510
could just be bumped into a function. Or even into a sourced file
and run from two different scripts. See the way that t8001 and
t8002 use annotate-tests.sh for an example.  

I do not agree and would like to leave the tests as they are.
Instead of introducing a whole lot of very similar copies, i added
just a few.  

I'm not sure I understand why you added the ones you did, though. For
instance, "--no-show-signature overrides --show-signature x509" seems
like it has nothing to do with the gpg/gpgsm distinction.

So I'd have expected that to be _outside_ of the shared battery of
tests.

True, it took my quite some time to figure out a way to configure gpgsm
non-interactively. Generate the key etc. without even a single popup of
the gpg-agent... After that i just added random tests to create
"coverage", without much focus. I would be happy to revisit that and
drop test cases, and add some that are missing.

Henning

quoted

The original ones are even very similar between each other.
We are again talking about two problems. 1. we need test cases for
gpgsm if we want to merge gpgsm 2. the testsuite is very repetitive

While addressing 1 make 2 obvious and worse, addressing 2 is a whole
different story and should probably be discussed outside of this
thread. And i would not like to inherit responsibility for 2. In
fact the whole discussion emphasizes that it was a good idea to make
GPGSM depend on GPG, because it allows to somewhat reuse existing
tests.  

IMHO there is a big difference between inheriting responsibility for
something, and not making it worse. But I'm not all that interested in
fighting about it.

-Peff