DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38818>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38818 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-03-06 09:33 ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Yeah, test case is dearly needed. It's a reoccuring issue that one of those > combinations of (proxy, SSL, auth(scheme) proxy, auth(scheme) server) breaks. > I > am not very good at combinatorics, but there seem to be about ~32 > possibilities > to combine those. It's very hard to achieve full test coverage of the possible > state space. I was thinking of refactoring the test suite so it can be run > with > any combination of the above. But I guess that's something for another > summer-of-code... Odi, I seriously doubt that refactoring of the test suite will help. It is HttpClient that is in need of refactoring. Presently SSL tunneling, authentication, redirects handling, connection persistence aspects are all inseparably coupled in the HttpMethodDirector and cannot be adequately unit-tested. I considered writing a test case for this bug, and decided to not ivest time into that, as I do not see a good way to test the bug independently from the underlying connection manager (the connection manager would have to return THE SAME connection for the test case to be meaningful). Essentially the test case would test the assumptions of the inner working of the connection manager rather than SSL tunneling code Oleg -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
