-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.1k
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
test: split test-crypto-keygen.js #49221
Conversation
To avoid timing out on ARM machines in the CI.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Added some additional changes other than copy-pasting, locally before the changes:
After:
This is on a relatively fast machine (it's on ARM, I had to comment out the SKIP in |
I think the length changes in the last commit should not affect the effectiveness of the tests, but cc @nodejs/crypto to be sure |
Can we run a stress test to find out? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
RSLGTM
Let's see if the stress test job understands wildcard.. https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/419/ |
Welp, it looks like the stress test job does not understand wildcards, let's see if we can pass all the tests into it... https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/421/ if it still does not work, I guess we can only rely on the full CI to check. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. Admittedly, it's a long and slow test, but moving it to pummel
or increasing timeouts seems reasonable to me as well. I've said many times that, in my opinion, (short) timeouts cause more problems than they solve.
// Tests that a key pair can be used for encryption / decryption. | ||
function testEncryptDecrypt(publicKey, privateKey) { | ||
const message = 'Hello Node.js world!'; | ||
const plaintext = Buffer.from(message, 'utf8'); | ||
for (const key of [publicKey, privateKey]) { | ||
const ciphertext = publicEncrypt(key, plaintext); | ||
const received = privateDecrypt(privateKey, ciphertext); | ||
assert.strictEqual(received.toString('utf8'), message); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Tests that a key pair can be used for signing / verification. | ||
function testSignVerify(publicKey, privateKey) { | ||
const message = Buffer.from('Hello Node.js world!'); | ||
|
||
function oldSign(algo, data, key) { | ||
return createSign(algo).update(data).sign(key); | ||
} | ||
|
||
function oldVerify(algo, data, key, signature) { | ||
return createVerify(algo).update(data).verify(key, signature); | ||
} | ||
|
||
for (const signFn of [sign, oldSign]) { | ||
const signature = signFn('SHA256', message, privateKey); | ||
for (const verifyFn of [verify, oldVerify]) { | ||
for (const key of [publicKey, privateKey]) { | ||
const okay = verifyFn('SHA256', message, key, signature); | ||
assert(okay); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These functions have very generic names but very specific implementations. For example, testEncryptDecrypt
works with certain asymmetric key pairs only, whereas most encryption and decryption operations in cryptography rely on symmetric keys.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you have a suggestions for the names? i think generally it's fine to have very generic names in the test commons - that's what we've been doing for many tests utils too. The point is just sharing code among tests. The were named that way in one long test test anyway, so keeping the name doesn't make much of a difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The were named that way in one long test test anyway, so keeping the name doesn't make much of a difference.
Yes, in a test file that exclusively used asymmetric encryption. But moving them into common
, these functions become available to all tests.
I don't want to make this more work for you than it has to be, so I am fine with leaving the names as they are.
Mind that moving to pummel means usually people do not run them locally (we don't run them in |
Landed in a81d5e1...b781eaf |
To avoid timing out on ARM machines in the CI. PR-URL: nodejs#49221 Refs: nodejs#49202 Refs: nodejs#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#49221 Refs: nodejs#49202 Refs: nodejs#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs#49221 Refs: nodejs#49202 Refs: nodejs#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
To avoid timing out on ARM machines in the CI. PR-URL: nodejs/node#49221 Refs: nodejs/node#49202 Refs: nodejs/node#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs/node#49221 Refs: nodejs/node#49202 Refs: nodejs/node#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs/node#49221 Refs: nodejs/node#49202 Refs: nodejs/node#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
To avoid timing out on ARM machines in the CI. PR-URL: nodejs/node#49221 Refs: nodejs/node#49202 Refs: nodejs/node#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs/node#49221 Refs: nodejs/node#49202 Refs: nodejs/node#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
PR-URL: nodejs/node#49221 Refs: nodejs/node#49202 Refs: nodejs/node#41206 Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
To avoid timing out on slow machines in the CI.
Refs: #49202
Refs: #41206