Am Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:35:54 -0400 schrieb Jeff King <p...@peff.net>:
> 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 annotate-tests.sh 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. Henning > > 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
