[MERGE][bug #175524] Make http test servers 1.1 compliant
Vincent Ladeuil
v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr
Thu Jan 3 08:39:12 GMT 2008
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Bennetts <andrew at canonical.com> writes:
Andrew> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> HTTP/1.1 was only partially tested, this patch addresses that
>> main point and several others found during the work:
Andrew> [...]
>>
>> On the whole, the tests are now more complete and adding an https
>> additional parametrization becomes possible.
>>
>> There was 236 tests for 'bzr selftest --no-plugins
>> tests.test_http', we now have 463 tests, this is due to a
>> previously incomplete coverage and some tests now raising N/A
>> (where nothing was done before). This also reveals some pycurl
>> limitations ;)
>>
Andrew> bb:tweak
Andrew> This is a very large diff,
Yeah I know ;-/ I tried hard to reduce the patch size and to not
include other smalls enhancements or fixes, but cruft had
accumulated there and this refactoring was really needed.
Andrew> but none of the code in it seems particularly gnarly,
Andrew> and it appears to have good test coverage.
That was the main point.
Andrew> So even though I'm not sure I've comprehensively read
Andrew> every last detail,
I would have been interested in comments on the test
parametrization and about the idea to push it down to the class
itself ?
Andrew> I'd be happy to have this merged in bzr.dev.
Thanks.
Andrew> It might be good to get Alexander or another Windows
Andrew> user to check it doesn't cause trouble for them
Andrew> first, but I don't expect any serious problems there.
Aaron already mentioned (see 'Misc fixes for win32') that it
helped (with a tweak that will be included in my submission).
I also run 'bzr selftest tests.test_http' on winXP and the 302
tests are passing.
<snip/>
Andrew> [...]
>> -
>> - def test_empty_pass(self):
>> - raise tests.KnownFailure(
>> - 'some versions of pycurl does not handle empty proxy passwords')
Andrew> Elsewhere you check for the specific versions of
Andrew> pycurl with this bug. I think probably this should
Andrew> be a Feature, so affected tests could check that. I
Andrew> also wonder if TestNotApplicable would be more
Andrew> appropriate than KnownFailure for this situation?
Given that it *was* a bug in earlier versions of pycurl I think
the KnownFailure is appropriate, especially since it will be
triggered only for old versions, remembering people seeing it,
that, yes, there is a known failure in pycurl.
Vincent
More information about the bazaar
mailing list