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
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: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] 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 Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org 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: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] 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 Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org 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
Agreed! Does SUnit support that?
Ron
-----Original Message----- From: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] 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 Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
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
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: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] 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 Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org 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: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] 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 Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ cryptography
cryptography@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Lukas Renggli -
Robert Withers -
Ron Teitelbaum