Re: master 32e790f: Implement NTLM server for ntlm.el testing

[Thomas Fitzsimmons]

Hi Michael,

Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de> writes:

> Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim@fitzsim.org> writes:

[...]

>>> Could you pls provide more advanced checks for dependencies? For
>>> example, instead of
>>>
>>>  (and (featurep 'url-http-ntlm) (featurep 'web-server))
>>>
>>> you could check a proper version of the packages?
>>
>> I'd rather not add the complexity, e.g., depending on package.el.
>> Beyond this first requirement to update web-server to the latest, I
>> don't see how a version check would be useful.  I tried to implement a
>> specific check for the ws-parse functionality, but I couldn't find an
>> easy way of confirming the new NTLM path.
>
> That's just *this* case. Other changes might apply to your packages in
> the future, which require newer package code. And I'm thinking also
> about a more general approach for other Emacs tests, how to use GNU ELPA
> packages as dependency.

OK, makes sense.

> And you don't need package.el. Require lisp-mnt, then you could do
> something like

[...]

OK, thanks.  I've pushed a variation on your suggestion that checks for
the NTLM ws-parse functionality (web-server's GNU ELPA version has not
been bumped yet).

>>> Warning (emacs): Cannot find one or more GNU ELPA packages
>>> Warning (emacs): Skipping NTLM authentication tests
>>> Warning (emacs): See GNU_ELPA_DIRECTORY in test/README
>>> Running 3 tests (2021-02-19 10:26:00+0100, selector `(not (tag :unstable))')
>>>   skipped  1/3  ntlm-authentication (0.000133 sec)
>>>   skipped  2/3  ntlm-authentication-old-compatibility-level (0.000097 sec)
>>>    passed  3/3  ntlm-time-to-timestamp (0.000136 sec)
>>>
>>> Is it necessary to be such chatty? The tests are skipped (like other
>>> tests), fine.
>>
>> I debated not putting in those warnings.  I wanted to point out why the
>> tests are being skipped, and in particular that it's easy to have them
>> not be skipped if you have a GNU ELPA checkout (versus tests that are
>> unavoidably skipped because they depend on a different OS or
>> architecture).
>>
>> Basically, I'd like to encourage Emacs maintainers to not skip these
>> tests; the reason I wrote them was to prevent regressions like Bug#43566
>> (merged with Bug#44195 and Bug#44439), which broke all uses of NTLM in
>> an Emacs point release.
>
> Again, not every Emacs developer has an ELPA checkout. And we shouldn't
> be bossy to them.

Sure, I removed the warnings.

Thomas