From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6062B1FF167
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; 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: <dfb56343-9e15-4825-8786-2ee6a8e4a82a@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 11:50:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240731093604.1315088-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20240731093604.1315088-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<a5f144a7-ce9a-4f18-8b9f-8613192c3691@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <a5f144a7-ce9a-4f18-8b9f-8613192c3691@proxmox.com>
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
<pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>,
<mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
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 <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> 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