Test cases
Locked
 
|
I was thinking of splitting the Test Case up into multiple test cases
that can be run independently. There are a few tests that take a very long time, including the ElGamal test cases and one of the tests for SHA256. I was to create the following test cases: DSATestCase RSATestCase DESTestCase HashFunctionTestCase ElGamalTestCase RijndaelTestCase CipherBlockModeTestCase Then ElGamal can take a long time. Is it ok to remove the SHA256 test case of hashing a 1000000 $a string? The function is already tested with the other two tests. Does anyone have an issue with my doing this? cheers, Robert _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Rob,
We need to add standard test to all cryptographic functions. This is one of those tests. I would be ok with me if we have multiple test classes. We could have basic tests for us, and a separate set of standard tests. It would be ok with me to move this test to a standard test class. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Robert Withers > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:51 PM > To: Cryptography Team Development List > Subject: [Cryptography Team] Test cases > > I was thinking of splitting the Test Case up into multiple test cases > that can be run independently. There are a few tests that take a > very long time, including the ElGamal test cases and one of the tests > for SHA256. I was to create the following test cases: > > DSATestCase > RSATestCase > DESTestCase > HashFunctionTestCase > ElGamalTestCase > RijndaelTestCase > CipherBlockModeTestCase > > > Then ElGamal can take a long time. Is it ok to remove the SHA256 > test case of hashing a 1000000 $a string? The function is already > tested with the other two tests. > > Does anyone have an issue with my doing this? > > cheers, > Robert > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Ron,
It makes perfect sense to do so. At least splitting the test cases up will mean we can focus on a specific set of test cases rather than pay the whole cost each time. There are a set of test cases using Rijndael that are failing. Any ideas on them? cheers, Robert On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote: > Rob, > > We need to add standard test to all cryptographic functions. This > is one of > those tests. I would be ok with me if we have multiple test > classes. We > could have basic tests for us, and a separate set of standard > tests. It > would be ok with me to move this test to a standard test class. > > Ron > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >> Robert Withers >> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:51 PM >> To: Cryptography Team Development List >> Subject: [Cryptography Team] Test cases >> >> I was thinking of splitting the Test Case up into multiple test cases >> that can be run independently. There are a few tests that take a >> very long time, including the ElGamal test cases and one of the tests >> for SHA256. I was to create the following test cases: >> >> DSATestCase >> RSATestCase >> DESTestCase >> HashFunctionTestCase >> ElGamalTestCase >> RijndaelTestCase >> CipherBlockModeTestCase >> >> >> Then ElGamal can take a long time. Is it ok to remove the SHA256 >> test case of hashing a 1000000 $a string? The function is already >> tested with the other two tests. >> >> Does anyone have an issue with my doing this? >> >> cheers, >> Robert >> _______________________________________________ >> Cryptography mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >> cryptography > > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
> It makes perfect sense to do so. At least splitting the test cases
> up will mean we can focus on a specific set of test cases rather than > pay the whole cost each time. Or use a testing framework, that allows to tag tests to belong to different categories/groups, such as #cryptographyStandardTest and #slowTest ... and then everybody can chose what tests to run and what to ignore ;-) Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Agreed! Does SUnit support that?
Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Lukas Renggli > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 10:08 AM > To: Cryptography Team Development List > Subject: Re: Re: [Cryptography Team] Test cases > > > It makes perfect sense to do so. At least splitting the test cases > > up will mean we can focus on a specific set of test cases rather than > > pay the whole cost each time. > > Or use a testing framework, that allows to tag tests to belong to > different categories/groups, such as #cryptographyStandardTest and > #slowTest ... and then everybody can chose what tests to run and what > to ignore ;-) > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
In reply to this post by Rob Withers
Load the latest Cryptography-Tests
On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Robert Withers wrote: > Ron, > > It makes perfect sense to do so. At least splitting the test > cases up will mean we can focus on a specific set of test cases > rather than pay the whole cost each time. There are a set of test > cases using Rijndael that are failing. Any ideas on them? > > cheers, > Robert > > On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote: > >> Rob, >> >> We need to add standard test to all cryptographic functions. This >> is one of >> those tests. I would be ok with me if we have multiple test >> classes. We >> could have basic tests for us, and a separate set of standard >> tests. It >> would be ok with me to move this test to a standard test class. >> >> Ron >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [hidden email] >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On >>> Behalf Of >>> Robert Withers >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:51 PM >>> To: Cryptography Team Development List >>> Subject: [Cryptography Team] Test cases >>> >>> I was thinking of splitting the Test Case up into multiple test >>> cases >>> that can be run independently. There are a few tests that take a >>> very long time, including the ElGamal test cases and one of the >>> tests >>> for SHA256. I was to create the following test cases: >>> >>> DSATestCase >>> RSATestCase >>> DESTestCase >>> HashFunctionTestCase >>> ElGamalTestCase >>> RijndaelTestCase >>> CipherBlockModeTestCase >>> >>> >>> Then ElGamal can take a long time. Is it ok to remove the SHA256 >>> test case of hashing a 1000000 $a string? The function is already >>> tested with the other two tests. >>> >>> Does anyone have an issue with my doing this? >>> >>> cheers, >>> Robert >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cryptography mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>> cryptography >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cryptography mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >> cryptography > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
I just split the tests apart and made some changes to speed things up.
DiffieHellman: now only generate a 64 bit prime/generator, otherwise test with a pre-generated prime/generator pair ElGamal: now only generate a 64 bit keys, otherwise test with a single 512 bit pre-generated keys SHA256: commented out the test of a string of 1000000 $a. When primitive support arrives, we can uncomment. All tests run in under 3 seconds of so, so there is good responsive feedback. cheers, Robert On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:22 AM, Robert Withers wrote: > Load the latest Cryptography-Tests > > On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Robert Withers wrote: > >> Ron, >> >> It makes perfect sense to do so. At least splitting the test >> cases up will mean we can focus on a specific set of test cases >> rather than pay the whole cost each time. There are a set of test >> cases using Rijndael that are failing. Any ideas on them? >> >> cheers, >> Robert >> >> On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote: >> >>> Rob, >>> >>> We need to add standard test to all cryptographic functions. >>> This is one of >>> those tests. I would be ok with me if we have multiple test >>> classes. We >>> could have basic tests for us, and a separate set of standard >>> tests. It >>> would be ok with me to move this test to a standard test class. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [hidden email] >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On >>>> Behalf Of >>>> Robert Withers >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:51 PM >>>> To: Cryptography Team Development List >>>> Subject: [Cryptography Team] Test cases >>>> >>>> I was thinking of splitting the Test Case up into multiple test >>>> cases >>>> that can be run independently. There are a few tests that take a >>>> very long time, including the ElGamal test cases and one of the >>>> tests >>>> for SHA256. I was to create the following test cases: >>>> >>>> DSATestCase >>>> RSATestCase >>>> DESTestCase >>>> HashFunctionTestCase >>>> ElGamalTestCase >>>> RijndaelTestCase >>>> CipherBlockModeTestCase >>>> >>>> >>>> Then ElGamal can take a long time. Is it ok to remove the SHA256 >>>> test case of hashing a 1000000 $a string? The function is already >>>> tested with the other two tests. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have an issue with my doing this? >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Robert >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Cryptography mailing list >>>> [hidden email] >>>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>>> cryptography >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cryptography mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>> cryptography >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cryptography mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >> cryptography > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
> Agreed! Does SUnit support that?
No I just wanted to say that we are lacking at least this feature in SUnit. Other xUnit frameworks support categories for years ... Lukas -- Lukas Renggli http://www.lukas-renggli.ch _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
«
Return to Squeak - Cryptography
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |