Code Review Request: Generalise com.oracle.security.ucrypto tests

[Valerie (Yu-Ching) Peng]

Well, I have not looked at the complete webrev.
But it looks to me that if the tests are generalized to cover more 
providers, then they should be moved to somewhere else instead of 
"com/oracle/security/ucrypto" directory which implies the regression 
tests for OracleUcrypto provider. Maybe somewhere under the 
/javax/crypto/ would be a better fit.

One more concern that I have is that some functionalities tested in the 
tests may be *optional*. When the tests are developed for a specific 
provider such as OracleUcrypto provider, we know what it supports and 
doesn't support. However, when the tests are generalized to apply to all 
security providers, it gets a bit fragile. Even it works w/ current list 
of providers, once a new provider is added, the tests may very likely 
fail. The tests may have to be relaxed when it comes to these optional 
functionalities, e.g. digest cloning, key wrapping, etc.

Personally, I feel this is a bit more than "regression tests"...
Valerie

On 03/29/12 07:43, Andrew Hughes wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/security-dev/2012-March/004615.html
>
> this webrev:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/enc_tests/webrev.01/
>
> updates the tests as follows:
>
> 1.  Tests all available providers, not just ucrypto which is unavailable on OpenJDK.
> 2.  No longer fails the whole test due to a single failure, but provides a cumulative result instead.
> 3.  All output goes to System.err so that stack traces correspond to other output for debugging.
>
> The tests pass on all providers, with the exception of PKCS11 which has issues on AES that we're still looking onto.
> There were issues with Digest too, but this should be resolved by the fix described in
> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6414899
>
> changeset:   4908:cdc128128044
> parent:      4888:0194fe5ca404
> user:        valeriep
> date:        Thu Jan 05 18:18:04 2012 -0800
> summary:     6414899: P11Digest  should support cloning
>
> Does this look ok?  If so, can I have a bug ID to commit it and which tree should it go to?
>
> Thanks,