On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:44 AM Nate Finch <nate.fi...@canonical.com> wrote:
> I was actually trying to avoid talking about the test itself to keep > things shorter ;) > > The test is parsing the entire codebase under github.com/juju/juju to > look for places where we're creating a new value of crypto/tls.Config > instead of using the new helper function that I wrote that creates one with > more secure defaults. There's not really any getting around the fact that > parsing the whole tree takes a long time. > The nature of the test is important here: it's not a test of Juju functionality, but a test to ensure that we don't accidentally use a TLS configuration that doesn't match our project-wide constraints. It's static analysis, using the test framework; and FWIW, the sort of thing that Lingo would be a good fit for. I'd suggest that we *do* organise things like this separately, and run them as part of the "scripts/verify.sh" script. This is the sort of test that you shouldn't need to run often, but I'd like us to gate merges on. Cheers, Andrew > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:25 PM Nicholas Skaggs < > nicholas.ska...@canonical.com> wrote: > >> This is a timely discussion Nate. I'll avoid saying too much off the >> top, but I do have a question. >> >> On 04/27/2016 12:24 PM, Nate Finch wrote: >> > I just wrote a test that takes ~16.5 seconds on my machine. >> Why does the test take so long? Are you intending it to be a short / >> small scoped test? >> >> Nicholas >> > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
