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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 11, 2018, 14:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20180711143554.GG23835@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180711154019.202e75c5@md1pvb1c.ad001.siemens.net>

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

Show 8 quoted lines

> > 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.

Show 9 quoted lines

> 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