Am Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:35:54 -0400
schrieb Jeff King <>:

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

True, it took my quite some time to figure out a way to configure gpgsm
non-interactively. Generate the key etc. without even a single popup of
the gpg-agent... After that i just added random tests to create
"coverage", without much focus. I would be happy to revisit that and
drop test cases, and add some that are missing.


> > 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

Reply via email to