Re: Fwd: t/modules/{brotli,deflate}.t: handle the case < 2.4.42

2019-12-20 Thread pgajdos
Hi!

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:32:11PM +0100, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>In other word, what is the "semantic" behind the test framework?
>   - Testing against regression only? (in this case including Petr's
>patch makes sense to me)   - or -
>   - Checking that the behavior is correct (in this case, I'm not fan
>of "hiding" things that are known to fail. A failure would mean: "you
>should upgrade to have this fixed")

Both works for me, in case of #2, I will just fork testsuite for
each new code stream and eventually backport needed tests for
upcomming bug fixes.

I just need to know your preference.

Have nice Christmas,
Petr

-- 
Have a lot of fun!


Fwd: t/modules/{brotli,deflate}.t: handle the case < 2.4.42

2019-12-19 Thread Marion & Christophe JAILLET

Hi,

I've received the attached patch against the test framework.
This is not the first time Petr propose such patches and most (or maybe 
even all) have been merged.


The goal is to avoid new warnings on suse tests when a recent test 
framework is used on an older version of httpd.


However, this particular case puzzles me.
I see r1868313 as a fix on a non-RFC compliant behavior. So I'm not sure 
this should be "hidden" only because older versions are known to fail.


In other word, what is the "semantic" behind the test framework?
   - Testing against regression only? (in this case including Petr's 
patch makes sense to me)   - or -
   - Checking that the behavior is correct (in this case, I'm not fan 
of "hiding" things that are known to fail. A failure would mean: "you 
should upgrade to have this fixed")


What is your opinion?

CJ

 Message transféré 
Sujet : t/modules/{brotli,deflate}.t: handle the case < 2.4.42
Date :  Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:52:08 +0100
De :pgajdos 
Pour :  christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr



Hello Christophe,

I just updated to httpd-framework r1870094 and it is failing for me in
brotli.t and deflate.t and it is because of r1868312 which assumes
that httpd-trunk r1868313 is included in the httpd (2.4.42 and on).

I tried to do something in the patch attached, but not sure it is
satisfactory for inclusion.

Bye,
Petr

--
Have a lot of fun!

Index: httpd-framework/t/modules/brotli.t
===
--- httpd-framework.orig/t/modules/brotli.t	2019-12-16 10:22:18.570687529 +0100
+++ httpd-framework/t/modules/brotli.t	2019-12-16 15:04:43.043442458 +0100
@@ -5,16 +5,22 @@ use Apache::Test;
 use Apache::TestUtil;
 use Apache::TestRequest;
 
+my $with_contenc=1;
+if (have_min_apache_version('2.4.42')) {
+  # httpd-trunk r1868313 not included
+  $with_contenc=0;
+}
+
 my @qvalue = (
 [ ''  , 1],
 [ ' ' , 1],
 [ ';' , 1],
 [';q=', 1],
-[';q=0'   , 0],
-[';q=0.'  , 0],
-[';q=0.0' , 0],
-[';q=0.00', 0],
-[';q=0.000'   , 0],
+[';q=0'   , $with_contenc],
+[';q=0.'  , $with_contenc],
+[';q=0.0' , $with_contenc],
+[';q=0.00', $with_contenc],
+[';q=0.000'   , $with_contenc],
 [';q=0.'  , 1],   # invalid qvalue format
 );
 
Index: httpd-framework/t/modules/deflate.t
===
--- httpd-framework.orig/t/modules/deflate.t	2019-12-16 10:22:18.570687529 +0100
+++ httpd-framework/t/modules/deflate.t	2019-12-16 15:04:43.043442458 +0100
@@ -56,7 +56,12 @@ for my $server_deflate_uri (@server_defl
  content => $deflated_str);
 
 ok $original_str eq $inflated_str;
-ok $original_str eq $deflated_str_q0;
+if (have_min_apache_version("2.4.42")) {
+  ok $original_str eq $deflated_str_q0;
+} else {
+  # httpd-trunk r1868313 not included
+  ok $deflated_str eq $deflated_str_q0;
+}
 my $resp = POST($server_inflate_uri, @inflate_headers,
 content => "foo123456789012346");
 if (have_min_apache_version("2.5")) {