#31637: Make sure we have test coverage for Option, +Option and /Option across
defaults, torrc, command line
-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  teor                         |          Owner:  nickm
     Type:  enhancement                  |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium                       |      Milestone:  Tor:
                                         |  0.4.2.x-final
Component:  Core Tor/Tor                 |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                       |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  network-team-roadmap-august  |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:  #29211                       |         Points:
 Reviewer:  teor                         |        Sponsor:
-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by teor):

 * status:  needs_review => new
 * type:  defect => enhancement


Comment:

 I like this idea.
 I also think it could replace some of the repetitive parts of
 test_options.c

 I have some questions about the design:
 1. Should we name the tests, rather than numbering them?
 2. Will we ever have enough tests that we want to split tests into
 categories, and put each category of tests in its own directory?
 3. Are there any tests that we can't do using this framework?
   a) We can't test the basic "missing torrc, missing defaults torrc, no
 command line args" case, because the script supplies an empty file,
 instead of a missing defaults torrc
   b) We can't do tests that expect error on some platforms, but success on
 others (is "Sandbox 1" an example of this kind of test?)

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31637#comment:10>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs

Reply via email to