On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I tried experimenting with the sleep timing and I also replaced the
Thread.sleep call with a safer version, but the tests still failed.
interesting... but if you change the Thread.sleep timeout from 200 to 2000 it
works, right?
Jacopo
for having a few
more bits of randomness as part of the salt.
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
below:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/recent-HashCrypt-changes-and-using-salt-based-password-hashing-tp4571241p4591890.html
.
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
below:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/recent-HashCrypt-changes-and-using-salt-based-password-hashing-tp4571241p4591890.html
To unsubscribe from recent HashCrypt changes, and using salt-based
If you believe 1 is enough then +1 for me
Actually as it's only salt, I think it's ok
Jacques
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 04/24/2012 07:49 AM, Paul Foxworthy wrote:
Hi Adam,
Maybe I'm missing something, but if the salt is a random length and might be
0 characters, doesn't that
On 04/22/2012 03:53 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 4/20/2012 9:00 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/20/2012 12:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Not sure you noticed but Builbot is no longer running
http://ci.apache.org/waterfall?show_events=falsebranch=builder=ofbiz-trunkreload=none
Yeah, noticed that
On 04/23/2012 08:40 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian,
the issue you are experiencing is interesting and I had a look at it; I was
only able to recreate the same failures by changing the timeouts in
UtilCacheTests.java at line 302 and 308; instead of:
cache.setExpireTime(100); // line
This is really weird... I am wondering if there are issues caused by concurrent
threads accessing the cache but the JUnit tests should be all executed in the
same thread... so this should not be the case.
Jacopo
On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
The tests failed intermittently
://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
--
View this message in context:
http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/recent-HashCrypt-changes-and-using-salt-based-password-hashing-tp4571241p4583331.html
Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Adrian,
the issue you are experiencing is interesting and I had a look at it; I was
only able to recreate the same failures by changing the timeouts in
UtilCacheTests.java at line 302 and 308; instead of:
cache.setExpireTime(100); // line 302
Thread.sleep(200); // line 308
I set:
The tests failed intermittently in the OFBiz buildbot (back when it was
running). They always fail on my development machine.
I tried experimenting with the sleep timing and I also replaced the
Thread.sleep call with a safer version, but the tests still failed.
-Adrian
On 4/23/2012 2:40 PM,
On 4/20/2012 9:00 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/20/2012 12:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Not sure you noticed but Builbot is no longer running
http://ci.apache.org/waterfall?show_events=falsebranch=builder=ofbiz-trunkreload=none
Yeah, noticed that buildbot wasn't emailing. Looking at that link,
Yes I'm not too inclined too. This could be an option though for more security
concerned projects...
Jacques
From: Pierre Smits pierre.sm...@gmail.com
Hi Adam,
How would that be? That would be one per tenant in a multi-tenant setup? I
can imagine in a multi-tenant setup with the db backend
On 4/20/2012 12:23 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/19/2012 06:13 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
On 20/04/2012, at 9:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
On 04/20/2012 12:53 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Hi Adam,
How would that be? That would be one per tenant in a multi-tenant setup? I
can imagine in a multi-tenant setup with the db backend not on derby (as we
all recommend) the upgrade/migration aspect can be enormous. Even more so
in a HAFO-setup.
Hi Adam,
I can follow your reasoning. And it seems reasonable. But I would like to
suggest to you to create a JIRA for this where patches are uploaded and can
be tested in a separate ofbiz instantiation. This would then help with the
creation of implementation procedures and documentation prior
On 04/20/2012 09:56 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Hi Adam,
I can follow your reasoning. And it seems reasonable. But I would like to
suggest to you to create a JIRA for this where patches are uploaded and can
be tested in a separate ofbiz instantiation. This would then help with the
creation of
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 04/20/2012 09:56 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
Hi Adam,
I can follow your reasoning. And it seems reasonable. But I would like to
suggest to you to create a JIRA for this where patches are uploaded and can
be tested in a separate ofbiz instantiation. This
On 04/20/2012 12:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Not sure you noticed but Builbot is no longer running
http://ci.apache.org/waterfall?show_events=falsebranch=builder=ofbiz-trunkreload=none
Yeah, noticed that buildbot wasn't emailing. Looking at that link, it
appears that isis_ubuntu is offline.
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 04/20/2012 12:13 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Not sure you noticed but Builbot is no longer running
http://ci.apache.org/waterfall?show_events=falsebranch=builder=ofbiz-trunkreload=none
Yeah, noticed that buildbot wasn't emailing. Looking at that link,
As some may have noticed, I recently changed the way ofbiz creates
password hashes when it stores them in the database. Each time a new
password is created, a bit of randomness is used, to create a
random-length, random-content salt. This is placed at the beginning
of the hashed password, stored
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3006
Jacques
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
As some may have noticed, I recently changed the way ofbiz creates
password
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3006
2729 doesn't apply for what I am doing. Here's the list of things
that this
On 04/19/2012 04:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3006
2729 doesn't apply for what I am
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3006
2729 doesn't apply for what I am doing.
From: Adam Heath doo...@brainfood.com
On 04/19/2012 04:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3006
On 20/04/2012, at 9:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-3006
2729 doesn't apply for what I
On 04/19/2012 06:13 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
On 20/04/2012, at 9:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
On 04/19/2012 04:28 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Looking forward for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-1151
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2729
Hi Adam,
How would that be? That would be one per tenant in a multi-tenant setup? I
can imagine in a multi-tenant setup with the db backend not on derby (as we
all recommend) the upgrade/migration aspect can be enormous. Even more so
in a HAFO-setup.
Regards,
Pierre
Op 20 april 2012 01:23
28 matches
Mail list logo
