Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FR: Upstream NIST tests as an Autoconf Testsuite #84

Open
lefessan opened this issue Feb 4, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

FR: Upstream NIST tests as an Autoconf Testsuite #84

lefessan opened this issue Feb 4, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@lefessan
Copy link
Member

lefessan commented Feb 4, 2023

The general idea is good and the approach quite well.

Things to do:

  • done: rename folder "testsuite.src" to "nistrun.src"
  • Makefile.am:
    • add the new testsuite for generation and distribution, see how it is done for the testuite one directory above
    • new target check-nist, with dependencies nist $(MODULES_ALL) (this will ensure that both the generated testsuite source and the unpacked source files are ready)
  • either add run_DBNOIX.at and friend and make the complete include conditional depending on the "with_db" variable or - preferably - check the differences and add the appropriate AT_SKIP_IF for the tests to skip
  • testsuite source files:
    • change the complete testsuite to not cp anything, but compile from those directories
    • done: drop the group from the AT_SETUP as we have that in AT_KEYWORDS
    • done: drop the -x -debug from AT_CHECK - they are already part of $COMPILE
    • add check of stderr (and, done: stdout) to the compiles, should be completely empty - for some of the early tests add the appropriate -Wno-goto-section-stuff to the COMPILE

This way the general test running should be fine (one test is special as it needs to be killed, just skip it for now), but the important part is the verification (report.pl does some tests, mostly on the generated reports) - I guess that will lead to more AT_CHECK using $GREP/$SED/$AWK, right?

Originally posted by @GitMensch in #83 (review)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant