Re: [PATCH 0/2] t/lib-gpg: a gpgsm fix, a minor improvement, and a question

From: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 11, 2019, 19:51 UTC
Message-ID: <20190211195140.GB31807@szeder.dev>
In-Reply-To: <20190209230553.GI30548@zaya.teonanacatl.net>

On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 06:05:53PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > Just curious: how did you noticed the missing GPGSM prereq?
> 
> I just grep the build output for '# SKIP|skipped:' and then
> filter out those which I expect (thing like MINGW and
> NATIVE_CRLF that aren't likely to be in a Fedora build).
> 
> Far more manual than the slick method you have below. :)

Yeah, but yours show the SKIP cases, too, i.e. when the whole test is skipped by:

  if check-something
  then
        skip_all="no can do"
        test_done
  fi

I didn't bother with that because in those cases the prereq is not denoted by a single word, but rather by a human-readable phrase, and becase 'prove' runs those skipped test scripts at last when running slowest first, so I could already see them anyway.

Show 18 quoted lines

> > I'm asking because I use a patch for a good couple of months now that
> > collects the prereqs missed by test cases and prints them at the end
> > of 'make test'.  Its output looks like this:
> > 
> >   https://travis-ci.org/szeder/git/jobs/490944032#L2358
> > 
> > Since you seem to be interested in that sort of thing as well, perhaps
> > it would be worth to have something like this in git.git?  It's just
> > that I have been too wary of potentially annoying other contributors
> > by adding (what might be perceived as) clutter to their 'make test'
> > output :)
> 
> Indeed, I think that would be useful.  At the very least,
> the .missing_prereqs files look quite handy.  I wouldn't
> mind the output from 'make test' either, but building
> packages surely shifts my perspective toward more verbose
> build logs than someone hacking on git regularly and reading
> the 'make test' output.

The problem with those files is that a successful 'make test' automatically and unconditionally removes the whole 'test-results' directory at the end. So a separate and optional 'make test ; make show-missed-prereqs' wouldn't have worked, that's why I did it this way.

I think it would be better if we kept the 'test-results' directory even after a successful 'make test', there are some interesting things to be found there:

  https://public-inbox.org/git/CAM0VKjkVreBKQsvMZ=pEE0NN5gG0MM+XJ0MzCbw1rxi_pR+FXQ@mail.gmail.com/

Show 31 quoted lines

> >> A GIT_TEST_GNUPGHOME_ROOT var to set the root path for the GNUPGHOME
> >> dirs in the tests is one thought I had, but didn't try to put it into
> >> patch form.  Setting the --root test option is probably enough control
> >> for most cases.
> > 
> > A potential issue I see with GIT_TEST_GNUPGHOME_ROOT is that there are
> > several test scripts involving gpg, and if GIT_TEST_GNUPGHOME_ROOT is
> > set for the whole 'make test', then they might interfere with each
> > other when they happen to be run at the same time.
> 
> Yeah, I was envisioning that var as something which set the
> base dir, under which the normal test directories would
> live.  Basically, like setting --root, but only for the
> GnuPG bits.
> 
> I'm not impressed by that idea (and I'm even less so after
> realizing how it would most likely make it harder to gather
> up the results in the CI scripts).  I mainly tossed it out
> in the hope someone would reply with a better method. ;)
> 
> > In the meantime I came up with a '--short-trash-dir' option to
> > test-lib, which turns 'trash directory.t7612-merge-verify-signatures'
> > into 'trash dir.t7612'.  It works, but I don't really like it, and it
> > required various adjustments to the CI build scripts, notably to the
> > part in 'ci/print-test-failures.sh' that includes the trash dir of
> > failed test scripts in the build log.
> 
> I can certainly live with setting '--root' to a shorter path
> and waiting to see if GnuPG upstream will come up with
> something a little more friendly to users like us - running
> gpg in a test suite.

Are they aware of the issue?

  https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-January/057451.html

suggests to put the socket in '/var/run/user/$(id -u)', but that's for the "regular" use case, and we should take extra steps to prevent the tests' gpg from interfering with the gpg of the user running the tests. Not sure it would work on macOS. And ultimately it's not much different from your GIT_TEST_GNUPGHOME_ROOT suggestion.

Then I stumbled on these patches patches:

  https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/password-store/2017-May/002932.html

suggesting that at least one other project is working around this issue instead of waiting for upstream to come up with something.

> Though if we do just wait it out,
> maybe we could/should add a note in t/README or t/lib-gpg.sh
> about this to warn others?

Well, a comment could help others to not waste time on figuring out this "path is too long for a unix domains socket" issue... but now they will be able to find this thread in the list archives as well :)

On a related note: did you happen to notice occasional failures with gpg2 on Fedora builds? I observed some lately in tests like './t7004-tag.sh' or 't7030-verify-tag.sh' on the Travis CI macOS builds: it appears as if the gpg process were to die mid-verification. Couldn't make any sense of it yet, though didn't tried particularly hard either.