Hello,

Am Mittwoch, 21. September 2016, 22:40:36 CEST schrieb Steve Beattie:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:49:34PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
> > RE_PATH expected (simplified) '/.+', however this excludes a plain
> > '/' that can appear in path rules.
> > 
> > This patch changes the regex so that it also matches '/'.

> Seems like (despite what the coverage reports say) 

Test coverage basically tells you that the RE_PATH variable was set (and 
later re.compile'd) - but that's useless information.

> we're missing some
> test coverage on these particular regexs, because I don't see an
> obvious place (after the entire series has been applied) to add a
> simple "/" testcase.

You are right that there aren't tests for RE_PATH (which is only a regex 
sniplet, but used in some other regexes) or for RE_PROFILE_FILE_ENTRY. 
However, RE_PROFILE_FILE_ENTRY is indirectly tested by lots of tests in 
test-file.py. It's also tested by parsing all the parser/tst/simple_test/ 
profiles - and IIRC that's how I found out that a plain "/" causes 
problems.

IMHO the tests via FileRule are enough, but if you really insist on it, 
I won't object if you send a patch with some tests for 
RE_PROFILE_FILE_ENTRY ;-)


Oh, BTW:11/38 was also a result of parsing parser/test/simple_test/ ;-)


Regards,

Christian Boltz
-- 
Ein Computer tut ja das, was man ihm "sagt", und nicht das, was
man will. Ergo muß man wissen, wie man ihm sagt, was man will.
[Stefan G. Weichinger in postfixbuch-users]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-- 
AppArmor mailing list
AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor

Reply via email to