Hi Mikhail,
Thanks for your example.
If I understand correctly (always a dangerous start to a sentence <g>),
you would want a test case method to verify that a
NoSuchAlgorithmException gets thrown from method
AlgorithmParameters.getInstance() when the named provider does not have a
concrete implementation of AlgorithmParameters available ?
e.g.
public void testGetInstanceThrowsNSAException() {
try {
AlgorithmParameters a = AlgorithmParameters.getInstance(...);
fail("Expected a NoSuchAlgorithmException");
} catch (Throwable t) {
assertTrue(t instanceof java.security.NoSuchAlgorithmException);
}
}
You wouldn't want a test like this to run normally (i.e. with a provider
that *was* able to supply a concrete AlgorithmParameters) because the test
would always fail. Instead, you would only want a test like this to be run
where you have a provider incapable of returning the desired object.
If you agree with the above interpretation of your "exotic configuration"
then isn't it the case that you could simply augment your set of "good"
providers with a provider (let's call it "BadProvider") that has been
deliberately made incomplete and could be referred to by name in the above
test method ? Then the getInstance call becomes
AlgorithmParameters.getInstance("<algorithm name>", "BadProvider");
This would mean that the test method *could* be included in the normal run
of tests without need for skipping over. The "BadProvider" provider would
be just another artifact used in the test configuration whose role is to
intentionally create failure scenarios so that error handling works
correctly.
I'm not quite sure where the EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo constructor comes
into your scenario, since if your provider is incapable of actually
returning a valid AlgorithmParameters instance in the first place then how
does the test code acquire one to test the EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo
constructor ?
Best regards,
George
________________________________________
George C. Harley
Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26/01/2006 13:13
Please respond to
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: [testing] code for exotic configurations
We have tests that verify that our security framework works with users
providers installed in the system.
Consider EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo class. To call one of its constructors
you need AlgorithmParameters instance from a provider. If the providers
installed in your system do not have implementation of AlgorithmParameters
(or if you misconfigured your build) you'll unable to test that
constructor
of EncryptedPrivateKeyInfo.
So exotic config is: User's providers do not have implementation of
AlgorithmParameters.
The test that fails when no AlgorithmParameters exists can scare a user,
the test that silently skips has a chance to be skipping forever due to
misconfiguration.
That is an example.
Thanks,
Mikhail
On 1/26/06, George Harley1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Just to help clarify things, could you give us all some examples of what
> you define as an "exotic configuration" ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> George
> ________________________________________
> George C. Harley
>
>
>
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 26/01/2006 12:11
> Please respond to
> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> To
> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [testing] code for exotic configurations
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you mean that for a single test that verifies 10 lines of code
> working on very specific configuration I have to create a parallel test
> tree?
>
> What about tests that work in two different exotic configurations?
Should
> we duplicate them?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> On 1/26/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > one solution is to simply group the "exotic" tests separately from the
> > main tests, so they can be run optionally when you are in that exotic
> > configuration.
> >
> > You can do this in several ways, including a naming convention, or
> > another parallel code tree of the tests...
> >
> > I like the latter, as it makes it easier to "see"
> >
> > geir
> >
> >
> > Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > > Well let's start a new thread as this is more general problem.
> > >
> > > So if we have some code designed for some exotic configurations
> > > and we have tests that verify that exotic code.
> > >
> > > The test when run in usual configuration (not exotic one) should
> > > report something that would not scare people. But if one
> > > wants to test that specific exotic configuration that he should be
> > > able to easily verify that he successfully made required conf and
> > > the test worked well.
> > >
> > > The following options I see here:
> > > 1) introduce a new test status (like skipped) to mark those tests
that
> > > did not actually run
> > > 2) agree on exact wording that the skipped tests would print to
allow
> > > grep logs later
> > > 3) introduce tests-indicators that would fail when current
> > > configuration disallow
> > > running certain tests
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mikhail Loenko
> > > Intel Middleware Products Division
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
