> Travis tests. What is the long term plan? Should I port some to Mocha? If > so which ones?
I'm also in favour of using Mocha for ALL unit tests. The current unit test system breaks after an exception and doesn't allow to test individual unit tests. Also the timing information of Mocha is helpful. So please go ahead porting, the old unit test framework can then be removed if everyone agrees. There are currently two unit tests for subkey revocation signatures which fail. I wrote the following mail to gnupg-devel but so far it was not accepted. Best, Thomas P.S. Welcome back, Sean ==== On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Thomas Oberndörfer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to verify subkey revocation signatures created with GPG. > > RFC4880 says: > "Key revocation signatures (types 0x20 and 0x28) hash only the key > being revoked" > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.4 > > But when I compute the hash data only with the subkey packet the > verification fails. > > I then tried to hash primary and subkey packet together and the > verification succeeded. > > So it looks like GPG is calculating subkey revocation signature > (type 0x28) in the same way as the binding signature (type 0x18). > > Is this correct? And if yes is this not a deviation from RFC4880? > I'm currently implementing this verification in OpenPGP.js and > not sure how to handle this case. > > Thanks, > Thomas ==== On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Tankred Hase <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > mocha is currently the framework of choice for the integration tests running > in travis ci. If we could get the unit tests ported over and running in the > grunt test job that would be great! > > Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the unit tests. But I guess it should be > pretty strait forward to see which tests test what. > > Kind regards, > Tankred > > Am 31.12.2013 um 21:19 schrieb "Robert B. Nelson" <[email protected]>: > > Thanks, I'm having fun. :-) > I've rewritten Ryan's Zimbra Zimlet. I've fixed a bunch of bugs, switched > it over to OpenPGPjs, and working on persisting the > keyring. Next I add signing then I'll release it while I add encryption. > In the mean time I had some questions regarding the unit tests and the > Travis tests. What is the long term plan? Should I port some to Mocha? If > so which ones? > ----- Sean Colyer <[email protected]> wrote: > | > Nice work everyone. Super excited to be back and seeing all the progress > that has been made since I left. Exciting times! > Welcome, Robert. Looks like you've been contributing quite a bit. Awesome. > > | > Sean > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Thomas Oberndörfer <[email protected]> > wrote: > | >> >> The keyring is still work in progress. It's not updated to the Key >> | class concept and >> | currently still works with packetlists. The API should be adapted to >> | work with Key >> | class objects instead. >> | Also the key ring in the devel branch is not as tightly coupled to the >> | rest of the library. >> | To my understanding it should be more like a plugin and the application >> logic is >> | managing the key handling. >> | With browserify we can then also build keyring bundles with different >> | storage layers. >> | So the keyring "requires" a storage module with a certain API and you >> | could either >> | build a keyring bundle with local storage or another persistency >> mechanism. >> | >> | >> | On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Robert B. Nelson >> | >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> | > I tried that but it doesn't work if you are using keyring. I think >> there may have been issues even without keyring but I'll have to recheck. >> | > >> | > ----- Original Message ----- >> | > | From: "Thomas Oberndörfer" <[email protected]> >> | > | To: "OpenPGP.js Mailing List" <[email protected]> >> | > | Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2013 9:17:50 AM >> | > | Subject: Re: [openpgpjs] Browserify Questions >> | > | >> | > | > How about from a non browserify'ed script? >> | > | >> | > | resources/openpgp.js already exposes a require function and the >> module name >> | > | "openpgp". >> | > | >> | > | This would look like: >> | > | >> | > | <script src="../openpgpjs/resources/openpgp.js"></script> >> | > | <script> >> | > | var openpgp = require('openpgp'); >> | > | </script> >> | > | >> | > | > How do I access the bundled resources/openpgp.js from another >> browserify'ed >> | > | > bundle? >> | > | >> | > | Your test.js: >> | > | >> | > | var openpgp = require('openpgp'); >> | > | >> | > | Need to tell browserify to ignore module 'openpgp': >> | > | >> | > | > browserify -x openpgp -r ./test.js:test -o testBundle.js >> | > | >> | > | This creates a testBundle.js with the module name "test" which has >> openpgp as >> | > | external dependency and can be used as: >> | > | >> | > | <script src="../openpgpjs/resources/openpgp.js"></script> >> | > | <script src="./testBundle.js"></script> >> | > | <script> >> | > | var test = require('test'); >> | > | </script> >> | > | >> | > | You can also include everything in one bundle: >> | > | >> | > | test2.js: >> | > | >> | > | var openpgp = require('../openpgpjs/'); >> | > | >> | > | Here we reference the root directory of the OpenPGP.js repo with the >> | > | package.json >> | > | that contains the module definition. >> | > | >> | > | browserify -r ./test2.js:test2 -o test2Bundle.js >> | > | >> | > | test2Bundle.js has complete OpenPGP.js lib + test2.js coding bundled >> in a >> | > | module >> | > | that exposes require function and module name "test2" >> | > | >> | > | Usage: >> | > | >> | > | <script src="./test2Bundle.js"></script> >> | > | <script> >> | > | var test2 = require('test2'); >> | > | </script> >> | > | >> | > | >> | > | Thomas >> | > | >> | > | >> | > | On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Robert B. Nelson >> | > | <[email protected]> wrote: >> | > | > I just started working in the devel branch and I have a couple of >> | > | > questions. >> | > | > >> | > | > How do I access the bundled resources/openpgp.js from another >> browserify'ed >> | > | > bundle? >> | > | > >> | > | > How about from a non browserify'ed script? >> | > | > >> | > | > I looked at the unit tests but they just include the openpgp >> source in >> | > | > their >> | > | > bundle. >> | > | > >> | > | > I played around with -x when building the client bundle but could >> never get >> | > | > it to work, I kept getting cannot find module errors where the >> module was >> | > | > some random collection of characters. >> | > | > >> | > | > _______________________________________________ >> | > | > >> | > | > http://openpgpjs.org >> | > | > Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org >> | > | _______________________________________________ >> | > | >> | > | http://openpgpjs.org >> | > | Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org >> | > | >> | > _______________________________________________ >> | > >> | > http://openpgpjs.org >> | > Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org >> | _______________________________________________ >> | >> | http://openpgpjs.org >> | Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org >> | > > _______________________________________________ > > http://openpgpjs.org > Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org > > > _______________________________________________ > > http://openpgpjs.org > Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org _______________________________________________ http://openpgpjs.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://list.openpgpjs.org
