| Summary: | [LayoutTests] Add digest access authentication test. | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | WebKit | Reporter: | Basuke Suzuki <Basuke.Suzuki> | ||||||||
| Component: | WebCore Misc. | Assignee: | Basuke Suzuki <Basuke.Suzuki> | ||||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||||||||||
| Severity: | Normal | CC: | achristensen, ap, Basuke.Suzuki, commit-queue, ews-watchlist, rniwa, webkit-bug-importer, youennf | ||||||||
| Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | InRadar | ||||||||
| Version: | WebKit Nightly Build | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Basuke Suzuki
2018-09-04 17:00:38 PDT
Created attachment 348875 [details]
PATCH
Comment on attachment 348875 [details] PATCH Attachment 348875 [details] did not pass mac-wk2-ews (mac-wk2): Output: https://webkit-queues.webkit.org/results/9096805 New failing tests: css3/filters/backdrop/add-remove-add-backdrop-filter.html Created attachment 348886 [details]
Archive of layout-test-results from ews107 for mac-sierra-wk2
The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the mac-wk2-ews.
Bot: ews107 Port: mac-sierra-wk2 Platform: Mac OS X 10.12.6
Comment on attachment 348875 [details] PATCH View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=348875&action=review > LayoutTests/http/tests/resources/digest-auth/digest.php:1 > +<?php Calculating a digest response in PHP is quite cunning! However, I can't help but wonder if this would be easier to set up with an Apache config. > LayoutTests/http/tests/xmlhttprequest/digest-auth-expected.txt:2 > +PASS > +User: everybody This is quite confusing. Is username part of pass criteria for the test? If so, that is misleading because there is already PASS or FAIL above it. And if not, let's not log it at all. > LayoutTests/http/tests/xmlhttprequest/digest-auth.html:9 > + /* > + * If the request contains credentials in its url, it should be stripped from it. > + * Also first attempt shouldn't contain basic auth header > + */ This should be visible in test output, no need to hide it in a comment. Comment on attachment 348875 [details] PATCH View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=348875&action=review Thanks for reviewing. >> LayoutTests/http/tests/resources/digest-auth/digest.php:1 >> +<?php > > Calculating a digest response in PHP is quite cunning! However, I can't help but wonder if this would be easier to set up with an Apache config. PHP is more universal than configuring apache with configuration. Each platform can share same result without configuration. It is very simple script to read. On the other hand, aligning each port to enable new feature by configuration is harder and require lots of work. Simpler choice seems better to me. >> LayoutTests/http/tests/xmlhttprequest/digest-auth-expected.txt:2 >> +User: everybody > > This is quite confusing. Is username part of pass criteria for the test? If so, that is misleading because there is already PASS or FAIL above it. And if not, let's not log it at all. Right. I'll move that to validation check. >> LayoutTests/http/tests/xmlhttprequest/digest-auth.html:9 >> + */ > > This should be visible in test output, no need to hide it in a comment. Got it. Created attachment 348936 [details]
PATCH
(In reply to Basuke Suzuki from comment #5) > PHP is more universal than configuring apache with configuration. Each > platform can share same result without configuration. It is very simple > script to read. > On the other hand, aligning each port to enable new feature by configuration > is harder and require lots of work. Simpler choice seems better to me. The downside is that we'll be testing adherence to what this script does, not to what an actual web server does. It's probably OK in this case, but less elegant in my opinion. Anyway, I won't object to getting it landed in this form. (In reply to Alexey Proskuryakov from comment #7) > (In reply to Basuke Suzuki from comment #5) > > PHP is more universal than configuring apache with configuration. Each > > platform can share same result without configuration. It is very simple > > script to read. > > On the other hand, aligning each port to enable new feature by configuration > > is harder and require lots of work. Simpler choice seems better to me. > > The downside is that we'll be testing adherence to what this script does, > not to what an actual web server does. It's probably OK in this case, but > less elegant in my opinion. > > Anyway, I won't object to getting it landed in this form. Can you give this r+? Comment on attachment 348936 [details]
PATCH
This script is or should be what an actual server does. r=me
Comment on attachment 348936 [details] PATCH Clearing flags on attachment: 348936 Committed r235822: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/235822> All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug. (In reply to Alex Christensen from comment #9) > Comment on attachment 348936 [details] > PATCH > > This script is or should be what an actual server does. r=me Thanks! |