search

w3c-ccg / http-signatures-test-suite

The HTTP Signatures test suite
Other
8 stars 3 forks source link

Initial #1

Closed aljones15 closed 5 years ago

aljones15 commented 5 years ago

http messages are fed into the binary

binary can be found here: https://github.com/digitalbazaar/http-signature-header/pull/8

Spec is here: https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/http-signatures/

This PR is not the actual implementation of tests, but basically to make sure all normative statements from the spec are in test form and in the right suite i.e. Canonize, Sign, and Verify.

davidlehn commented 5 years ago

Is there a reason for the tests being in the versioned dir test/http-signatures-v11? Seems like this should be a unversioned name where tests are updated to match latest spec version.

aljones15 commented 5 years ago

Is there a reason for the tests being in the versioned dir test/http-signatures-v11? Seems like this should be a unversioned name where tests are updated to match latest spec version.

pattern comes from:

https://github.com/w3c/vc-test-suite

not sure why, but I would imagine the separation of tests by version might be helpful in keeping track of what new features have not been implemented for specific version.

msporny commented 5 years ago

not sure why, but I would imagine the separation of tests by version might be helpful in keeping track of what new features have not been implemented for specific version.

Hey @aljones15, I had initially asked for it to be structured in this way. I was wrong. It will cause problems for us later down the road. I think it makes sense when we have a final spec (rfcXXXX), but doesn't make sense right now. So, rename the directory to "v1" (for lack of a better term).

aljones15 commented 5 years ago

not sure why, but I would imagine the separation of tests by version might be helpful in keeping track of what new features have not been implemented for specific version.

Hey @aljones15, I had initially asked for it to be structured in this way. I was wrong. It will cause problems for us later down the road. I think it makes sense when we have a final spec (rfcXXXX), but doesn't make sense right now. So, rename the directory to "v1" (for lack of a better term).

I renamed it to v11 because this is version 11 of the spec I believe? or are we using a different versioning for the tests?