search

rnpgp / ruby-rnp

Ruby bindings for librnp
https://www.rnpgp.org
MIT License
7 stars 3 forks source link

Update rspec to not depend on default encrypting subkey selection. #68

Closed ni4 closed 3 years ago

ni4 commented 3 years ago

As https://github.com/rnpgp/rnp/pull/1318 changes behavior to use the latest encrypting subkey by default we should also update rspec to allow that case. Since the default behavior may be changed again (say, to use the most strong subkey or so on), would allow both of the subkeys.

codecov[bot] commented 3 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #68 into master will decrease coverage by 0.36%. The diff coverage is 96.62%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #68      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.31%   98.94%   -0.37%     
==========================================
  Files          35       41       +6     
  Lines        2913     3325     +412     
==========================================
+ Hits         2893     3290     +397     
- Misses         20       35      +15
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lib/rnp/ffi/librnp.rb 97.79% <82.35%> (-1.46%) :arrow_down:
lib/rnp/input.rb 90.90% <82.60%> (-1.78%) :arrow_down:
lib/rnp/userid.rb 92.10% <92.10%> (ø)
lib/rnp/key.rb 97.66% <93.22%> (-1.70%) :arrow_down:
lib/rnp/signature.rb 97.91% <97.91%> (ø)
lib/rnp.rb 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/rnp/misc.rb 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/rnp/output.rb 95.00% <100.00%> (+0.66%) :arrow_up:
lib/rnp/rnp.rb 98.43% <100.00%> (+0.10%) :arrow_up:
spec/encrypt/simple_encrypt_spec.rb 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 17 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 361c6b8...5f1bfcf. Read the comment docs.

ni4 commented 3 years ago

@dewyatt Do you have any idea why it could fail with different errors after re-run? Looks mystic for me, as nothing major were changed.

ni4 commented 3 years ago

Okay, after the next rerun all tests are passing. Ping @dewyatt @ronaldtse for the review.

dewyatt commented 3 years ago

Yeah I looked at the CI failure but was never able to repro it.

Will review....

ni4 commented 3 years ago

@dewyatt thanks. Probably some virtual machines misbehavior/misconfiguration, actually I didn't change things much so it could lead to such weird failures.

ronaldtse commented 3 years ago

LGTM. Thank you @ni4 @dewyatt !