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]
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