From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6062B1FF167 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:50:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 58CD0B0A2; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:50:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:50:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Lukas Wagner , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20240731093604.1315088-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20240731093604.1315088-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.014 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v2 2/4] datastore: test DataBlob encode/decode roundtrip X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On 7/31/24 11:47, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On 2024-07-31 11:36, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> so that we can be sure we can decode an encoded blob again >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> new in v2 >> pbs-datastore/src/data_blob.rs | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/pbs-datastore/src/data_blob.rs b/pbs-datastore/src/data_blob.rs >> index a7a55fb7..8715afef 100644 >> --- a/pbs-datastore/src/data_blob.rs >> +++ b/pbs-datastore/src/data_blob.rs >> @@ -562,3 +562,69 @@ impl<'a, 'b> DataChunkBuilder<'a, 'b> { >> chunk_builder.build() >> } >> } >> + >> +#[cfg(test)] >> +mod test { >> + use pbs_tools::crypt_config::CryptConfig; >> + >> + use super::DataChunkBuilder; >> + >> + const TEST_DATA_LEN: usize = 50; >> + >> + #[test] >> + fn test_data_blob_builder() { >> + let mut data = Vec::with_capacity(TEST_DATA_LEN); >> + for i in 0..TEST_DATA_LEN / 10 { >> + for _ in 0..10 { >> + data.push(i as u8); >> + } >> + } >> + >> + // unencrypted, uncompressed >> + let (chunk, digest) = DataChunkBuilder::new(&data) >> + .compress(false) >> + .build() >> + .expect("could not create unencrypted, uncompressed chunk"); >> + >> + let data_decoded = chunk >> + .decode(None, Some(&digest)) >> + .expect("cannot decode unencrypted, uncompressed chunk"); >> + assert_eq!(data, data_decoded); >> + >> + // unencrypted, compressed >> + let (chunk, digest) = DataChunkBuilder::new(&data) >> + .compress(true) >> + .build() >> + .expect("could not create unencrypted, compressed chunk"); >> + >> + let data_decoded = chunk >> + .decode(None, Some(&digest)) >> + .expect("cannot decode unencrypted, compressed chunk"); >> + assert_eq!(data, data_decoded); >> + >> + // encrypted, uncompressed >> + let crypt_config = CryptConfig::new([9; 32]).expect("could not create crypt config"); >> + let (chunk, digest) = DataChunkBuilder::new(&data) >> + .compress(false) >> + .crypt_config(&crypt_config) >> + .build() >> + .expect("could not create encrypted, uncompressed chunk"); >> + >> + let data_decoded = chunk >> + .decode(Some(&crypt_config), Some(&digest)) >> + .expect("cannot decode encrypted, uncompressed chunk"); >> + assert_eq!(data, data_decoded); >> + >> + // encrypted, compressed >> + let (chunk, digest) = DataChunkBuilder::new(&data) >> + .compress(true) >> + .crypt_config(&crypt_config) >> + .build() >> + .expect("could not create encrypted, compressed chunk"); >> + >> + let data_decoded = chunk >> + .decode(Some(&crypt_config), Some(&digest)) >> + .expect("cannot decode encrypted, compressed chunk"); >> + assert_eq!(data, data_decoded); >> + } >> +} > > IMO it would be nicer to move the (sub) testcases > (e.g. 'encrypted, compressed', 'encrypted, uncompressed') to individual test cases, > transforming the info from the comments into the test name, for instance: > > #[test] > fn test_encrypted_uncompressed() { ... } > > (the fact that you test the data_blob module is clear from the full test name, which includes > the module prefix - so I think you can drop it from the test name) > > IMO that is quite nice when at some point we end up with a failing assertion, because > you see exactly from the name of the failing test what scenario did not work. > > What's your take on this? > sure makes sense i'll send a v3, but i'll wait for a review on the other patches first _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel