Aren/NetBSD
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
220,556 Commits 606 Branches 0 Tags 3.1 GiB
4c12d81ae9
Commit Graph

46 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
martin
0bac6b7608 Mark two more test case as only failing for BE 2013-05-16 07:43:02 +00:00
martin
e2eacae3cf Assume that the NAT failures that happen on some architectures are endianess 
bugs, so do not expect failure on LE archs for now.
 2013-05-16 07:20:29 +00:00
martin
99e62f4068 Fix argument order for "n14" 2013-03-19 13:23:58 +00:00
martin
19ec7b0e9f Mark a few more test cases known to only work by chance as failing 
and point to PR 47665.
Julio: how do we make such cases not fail when they actually happen to
work (by pure luck)?
 2013-03-18 20:03:56 +00:00
jmmv
ebd45a6ca9 Mark some long-standing failures as known failures. 
The offending tests are these:
- t_filter_exec: f26, f27.
- t_filter_parse: i17.
- t_nat_exec: n12.

These tests are confirmed to fail in NetBSD/current under amd64, i386 and
sparc as reported by the continuous testing systems.
 2013-03-17 03:00:05 +00:00
pgoyette
430b860e38 Christos fixed the crash in ipftest, so re-enable the failing tests. 2012-12-03 23:39:30 +00:00
pgoyette
0a24a43187 Add a couple more inet6 tests to verify correct rule parsing 2012-12-03 21:29:15 +00:00
pgoyette
eef4456861 Include an explicit test for correctly inferring family inet6 when there 
is an IPv6 address in the rule
 2012-12-03 20:43:59 +00:00
pgoyette
5d29dd1420 Now that expected output files have been adjusted, we can remove the 
expectation that tests i14 and i19 will fail.

Should address kern/47262 which will be closed.
 2012-12-03 19:43:36 +00:00
pgoyette
aaf9c67393 Without explicit address, the address family is not inferred and not 
displayed in the output.
 2012-12-03 19:42:00 +00:00
pgoyette
b757daddb1 For rules without any address, don't infer an address family. 2012-12-03 19:35:33 +00:00
pgoyette
0855789845 Test-case n3_6 is not applicable to NetBSD (according to Darren R.) 2012-12-02 08:52:06 +00:00
pgoyette
08896ebe5a More test clean-up 2012-12-01 21:37:41 +00:00
pgoyette
8c5ae97cbd Put the reason for expected failure in the correct position 2012-12-01 21:25:51 +00:00
pgoyette
5cf1898f6e Use proper quoting for the expected-failure reason 2012-12-01 04:43:44 +00:00
pgoyette
3ce5310bf2 Now that we have a PR for the brokenness in "ipftest -P -N", mark the 
related tests as Expected Failure rather than just skipping the tests.
 2012-12-01 04:40:00 +00:00
pgoyette
e56dec26bf Based on the error messages, the test is not broken, but ipftest probably 
in broken.

Once we can analyze the error further, we can open a PR in Gnats and then
move this to Expected-Failure.  But we shouldn't skip it because we'll
never come back to fix it.
 2012-12-01 04:19:24 +00:00
pgoyette
a95855641b If we're going to expect a failure, we need to use the correct shell 
function!  "atf_expect_fail()" does not have a "_tc" in its name!
 2012-11-30 14:46:48 +00:00
pgoyette
361363890b Rather than providing a custom Atffile that requires separate 
maintenance, just don't build or install the t_bpf.sh test.
 2012-11-30 01:41:50 +00:00
pgoyette
85d282e793 fix typo in previous - missing quote 2012-11-29 18:54:43 +00:00
pgoyette
1ed7a9a845 Update a couple of tests to indicate that they are broken/failing because 
of missing input/expected data files
 2012-11-29 17:22:17 +00:00
pgoyette
2cb9f80737 Now that I've created PR/47262, reference it in the tests that fail 
because of the PR
 2012-11-29 17:11:19 +00:00
pgoyette
a557d345a2 Add another test option for expected failures, rather than simply 
skipping tests
 2012-11-29 17:10:21 +00:00
pgoyette
60bd2d2129 Even though this test is currently disabled, fix it so it looks for the 
correct input and expected-output files for test case bpf_f1
 2012-11-29 16:05:34 +00:00
pgoyette
acd8a5e133 Since all of the expected-results files provided from upstream include 
the "-D" output (Dump additional internal tables), update the tests to
actually generate the data!

This lets us re-enable 28 of the 30 "skipped" tests.

XXX Still need to work on tests n12 and n17_6
 2012-11-29 04:57:42 +00:00
darrenr
30a942f180 test cases n201 and n202 were removed on import of 5.1.2 2012-07-22 16:22:41 +00:00
darrenr
e60fd761ef Merged IPFilter 5.1.2 into HEAD 2012-07-22 14:33:26 +00:00
darrenr
c9d5dc6c77 Import IPFilter 5.1.2 2012-07-22 13:44:10 +00:00
pgoyette
e048bbf458 Restore the rest of the ipfilter test framework, even if most of these 
tests are broken.  The "golden output" files for these tests need to be
updated.
 2012-07-08 14:45:05 +00:00
pgoyette
b437857d4c Restore one more group of tests. 
XXX Test i17 was broken previously, and remains broken.
 2012-07-08 00:53:01 +00:00
pgoyette
f499e4e2e7 Restore some more tests from ipfilter 5.1.1 
XXX Test in2 was broken before the ipfilter 5.1.1 import, and is still
XXX broken.
 2012-07-08 00:48:29 +00:00
pgoyette
a29385018a Restore some more of the ipfilter 5.1.1 tests. 
XXX It appears that ipftest is not handling the policy {,src-,dst-}hash
XXX correctly, so these tests are still marked broken/skipped.
 2012-07-08 00:36:46 +00:00
pgoyette
f5d9b1d185 Re-enable some of the ipf tests. The only thing wrong with these tests 
is that the tests were not re-imported with the rest of ipfilter 5.1.1

XXX There are still some more ipf test failures that need to get resolved,
XXX but at least we'll get some of them back just in case we have a
XXX regression.
 2012-07-07 23:29:44 +00:00
jruoho
4f5cd33ee1 Mark the failing tests as broken. XXX: If no one is willing to maintain 
the ipf tests, these should be removed.
 2012-03-27 09:27:33 +00:00
christos
22ab6602b0 Update to the tests from 5.1.1 2012-03-23 23:08:00 +00:00
riz
f8a1d7977c Back out the recent import of IPFilter 5.1.1 for the upcoming branch, 
which will now have IPFilter 4.1.34.  IPFilter 5.1.1 will be restored
post-branch.

ok: core, releng.
 2012-02-15 17:55:03 +00:00
martin
c785063d3d Comment out test n3_6 - the data files are missing 2012-02-14 09:17:22 +00:00
darrenr
b13c836b86 Update ipf test suite with test cases from IPFilter 5.1.1 2012-02-13 18:52:53 +00:00
pooka
94e5abaaf2 Disable test cases which have not worked in ages instead of skipping them. 2010-12-18 13:06:51 +00:00
jmmv
decf2b5e0f Adjusts tests after import of atf-0.12: 
- The use.fs property is gone.
- Mark the tests/fs/t_create:attrs test as broken when using the default
  unprivileged-user:_atf setting.  This probably deserves a fix somehow
  but I'm not sure at this point.
 2010-11-07 17:51:16 +00:00
jmmv
b27e7b1e81 Oh, wow. Loads of broken ipf test cases that went unnoticed because they 
were unchecked errors.  Fix them.

These have been caught by the upcoming version of atf, which explicitly
does 'set -e' in shell test programs.
 2010-10-19 16:36:36 +00:00
jmmv
9d0b4b5bb8 Get rid of static Atffiles and let bsd.test.mk generate them on the fly. 2010-07-13 21:13:21 +00:00
jmmv
f8a35c46be Do not use awk to generate the test program. Use some eval magic to generate 
the tests on the fly alongside with easier-to-read functions.

While doing this, split the big monolithic test program into more granular
but cohesive test programs.

Phew, this one was tough.  And it's horrible to see that many these tests
(yes, the tests themselves probably) are broken.
 2010-07-10 17:28:36 +00:00
pooka
062f78a69a Skip failing tests. When someone figures out where the problem is, 
these can be reenabled.
 2010-06-12 14:07:18 +00:00
jmmv
6b84fb92ac atf-0.9 introduces an use.fs test-case property to allow tests to write to 
their work directory.  The purpose is to be able to know which tests intend
to touch the file system and to allow a minor optimization in atf-run.

Define use.fs=true for all those tests requiring it.  (This highlights that
some tests currently require modifying the file system but conceptually
they shouldn't be... which leaves room for further improvements/cleanups
later :-)
 2010-06-04 08:39:40 +00:00
jmmv
b9daf172a0 Add the ipf tests developed by Lukasz Strzygowski as part of the atfify 
GSoC 2008 project.  These were originally inside the kernel subdirectory
but I think they belong in their own top-level directory because ipf
consists of more components than just the kernel-level packet filter.
 2009-02-20 21:42:59 +00:00