Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Integration testing for securedrop-admin #3341

Open
3 tasks done
redshiftzero opened this issue May 1, 2018 · 4 comments
Open
3 tasks done

Integration testing for securedrop-admin #3341

redshiftzero opened this issue May 1, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
epic Meta issue tracking child issues goals: more tests priority/high

Comments

@redshiftzero
Copy link
Contributor

redshiftzero commented May 1, 2018

Description

We accidentally introduced a regression in #3327 which was not caught by our automated tests (fortunately it was caught by manual QA). Also, it is difficult to fully test changes like those in #3340 without end-to-end integration tests.

For this reason, it's worth adding integration tests for securedrop-admin such that we can catch these kinds of bugs in the future.

User Stories

As a SecureDrop developer, I want integration testing of all user-facing applications such that I catch regressions before they go to production.

Child issues

@redshiftzero
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @kushaldas - I believe you mentioned you were working on this - can you push up your WIP if so?

@redshiftzero
Copy link
Contributor Author

As is evident with #3426, this is high priority. We should have a test git repo for the logic in ./securedrop-admin check_for_updates.

@emkll
Copy link
Contributor

emkll commented May 15, 2018

Perhaps a slightly simpler approach would be for a potential tester to fork the repo, and add a remote to the local repo, since the logic to fetch the tags will pull tags from all remotes. This will allow to push tags with higher version number (non rc) to test the check_for_updates logic.

@eloquence
Copy link
Member

After the 0.9.0 release, a missing cwd parameter for a subprocess caused a security check to fail when securedrop-admin update is executed from the graphical updater, which acts largely as a user-friendly wrapper. (See #3796.)

As discussed briefly during today's extended standup, we should account for this in our automated testing approach to avoid a repeat episode of this exact problem (this does not absolve us from having to test the graphical updater, but would provide an additional layer of automated sanity checks).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
epic Meta issue tracking child issues goals: more tests priority/high
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants