Test can't be easily added to wine because we don't have pages to test certificate errors on.
That should be addressed, no? E.g. with a page hosted at winehq.org with a self-signed certificate?
Or look at how Chromium does its ssl unit tests, by launching a little server written in python: http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=net/socke... http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=net/socke... - Dan
On 05/19/10 07:40, Dan Kegel wrote:
Test can't be easily added to wine because we don't have pages to test certificate errors on.
That should be addressed, no? E.g. with a page hosted at winehq.org with a self-signed certificate?
It's writing a test case for one of possible errors. It won't prove much more then you can see in the test I have written earlier.
Or look at how Chromium does its ssl unit tests, by launching a little server written in python: http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=net/socke... http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=net/socke...
I don't see a good reason for writing small http server in tests. It's a lot of work. Certificate verification errors can be checked in crypt32 tests, it can be done locally (there are already some tests).
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Piotr Caban piotr.caban@gmail.com wrote:
Or look at how Chromium does its ssl unit tests, by launching a little server written in python:
http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=net/socke...
http://src.chromium.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chromium.git;a=blob;f=net/socke...
I don't see a good reason for writing small http server in tests. It's a lot of work.
No, you don't have to write it, you can just use a canned python server. It isn't a lot of work.
Certificate verification errors can be checked in crypt32 tests, it can be done locally (there are already some tests).
Of course, if you can avoid having a server at all, that's the best. But there are some tests that currently fail if you're not online, and that's bad. - Dan
I don't see a good reason for writing small http server in tests. It's a lot of work. Certificate verification errors can be checked in crypt32 tests, it can be done locally (there are already some tests).
The crypt32 tests don't demonstrate the change you're making. wininet (and winhttp) really need their own tests for how certificate failures should be handled. A local http server would be ideal, but I wasn't asking for that: I only asked for a single test certificate, as even a single test would be useful, even if it doesn't provide much coverage. Right now, all certificates could be accepted or rejected, and we wouldn't know until bug reports started coming in. --Juan
-
Dan Kegel -
Juan Lang -
Piotr Caban