I think the "which is not straight forward to set up in Jenkins environment" is something that we absolutely need to fix.
-----Original Message----- From: Soemin Tjong Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 5:10 PM To: Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com>; Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] Building and running tests in services with SECURED=1 TEST=1 does not require SECURE=0. Except when the tests use the full IoTivity stack, e.g. a client/server tests. Building with SECURE=0 removes the need for security provisioning (of the server and client), which is not straight forward to set up in Jenkins environment. -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler via iotivity-dev Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 2:42 PM To: Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] Building and running tests in services with SECURED=1 TEST=1 should not require SECURE=0. If it does, we should fix that bug. -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 2:11 PM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] Building and running tests in services with SECURED=1 On 04/21/2017 02:26 AM, Way Vadhanasin via iotivity-dev wrote: > Jenkins appears to be building and running tests in services with SECURED=0. > When I tried to build these tests with SECURED=1, a big portion of them > failed. Is it time to remove SECURED=0 configuration out of Jenkins gate or > am I missing something? At the very least, we need to mandate that the > location of code that gets tested with SECURED=0 should also be tested with > SECURED=1 (I filed > IOT-2096<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjira.iotivity.org%2Fbrowse%2FIOT-2096&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C445e8e3742f3459e405108d488fb08e4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636284059173288441&sdata=0R7%2BvIZ22zgIfEt1S60Co7KyKC3RAzfrIg6AM0hMnFY%3D&reserved=0>). > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Way I asked this question in some form a while back, and came away with the impression that TEST=1, needed for the unittests, required SECURED=0. I may have misunderstood that reply. We do need to make sure that testing happens in a context that is as close as possible to what will go into production, so I agree this needs to be examined and at least one qualifying test run needs to be with SECURED=1. _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.iotivity.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fiotivity-dev&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C445e8e3742f3459e405108d488fb08e4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636284059173298440&sdata=7YSyZ8PTjilyU9GfT0qU6QaJ8XMQV7x29GjqQlDKaJU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.iotivity.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fiotivity-dev&data=02%7C01%7Cstjong%40exchange.microsoft.com%7C84d810cd6f964bd9117608d488ff38c8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636284077127904007&sdata=3zydvBVq0YQF6OtFHKUI747sdto8nB7RBDSO4Q2jShQ%3D&reserved=0
