On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:19:28PM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 02:20:25PM +0000, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Frediano Ziglio <fzig...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > common/ssl_verify.c | 5 +- > > > common/ssl_verify.h | 4 ++ > > > tests/Makefile.am | 20 ++++++ > > > tests/test-ssl-verify.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 4 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > create mode 100644 tests/test-ssl-verify.c > > > > > > diff --git a/common/ssl_verify.c b/common/ssl_verify.c > > > index 74f95bb..3ccb52d 100644 > > > --- a/common/ssl_verify.c > > > +++ b/common/ssl_verify.c > > > @@ -278,7 +278,10 @@ static int verify_hostname(X509* cert, const char > > > *hostname) > > > return cn_match; > > > } > > > > > > -static X509_NAME* subject_to_x509_name(const char *subject, int > > > *nentries) > > > +#if !ENABLE_EXTRA_CHECKS > > > +static > > > +#endif > > > +X509_NAME* subject_to_x509_name(const char *subject, int *nentries) > > > > I'd prefer we don't go down that road... > > > > Christophe > > > > Any alternative suggestion? > Adding the test at the end of the module? > #Include the source module into the test program? > > All are quite hacky but mocking/testing in C is often hacky.
#including "common/ssl_verify.c" sounds indeed like a better option, at least the testing does not require changing the library code. Christophe
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
