From: Todd Zullinger Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 04:38:55 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpg-interface: fix for gpgsm v2.3 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20220221092234.6kg66c3tuo2pya2a@fs> Fabian Stelzer wrote: > On 09.02.2022 11:20, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> Interesting. I do have a patch in my gnupg-2.3 series to >> reload the gpg agent after changing the trustlist, as the >> changes were not picked up prior to that. In my case, I was >> running the tests in an environment where gpg could not >> prompt me. (It also seems like we should try harder to have >> the test suite reject such prompts). >> > > Yes, gpg-agent in general can be problematic for the tests. I'm not familiar > enough with gpg but I don't know if we can get by without it? With modern gnupg, the secret keyring access is handled by gpg-agent. So it's no longer optional, which is mildly unfortunate for automated tests.. >> diff --git a/t/lib-gpg.sh b/t/lib-gpg.sh >> index 6bc083ca77..38e2c0f4fb 100644 >> --- a/t/lib-gpg.sh >> +++ b/t/lib-gpg.sh >> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ test_lazy_prereq GPGSM ' >> gpgsm --homedir "${GNUPGHOME}" -K --with-colons | >> awk -F ":" "/^fpr:/ {printf \"%s S relax\\n\", \$10}" \ >> >"${GNUPGHOME}/trustlist.txt" && >> + (gpgconf --reload all || : ) && >> >> echo hello | gpgsm --homedir "${GNUPGHOME}" >/dev/null \ >> -u committer@example.com -o /dev/null --sign - >> >> --- 8< --- > > This patch fixes it for me. Excellent. > I have prepared the patch with the simple strstr() matching I can post in a > bit. I would add your two gpg test lib patches to it if thats ok? Absolutely. Thank you for working on this and pulling it together. Cheers, -- Todd