Rather than clear them, even on failure, detect if an individual test
failed and dump the error queue there. We already do this at the GTest
level in ErrorTestEventListener, but that is too coarse-grained for the
file tests.
Change-Id: I3437626dcf3ec43f6fddd98153b0af73dbdcce84
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/19966
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Comments in CAVP are semantically important and we need to copy them
from the input to the output.
Change-Id: Ib798c4ad79de924487d0c4a0f8fc16b757e766d8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/16725
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This introduces machinery to start embedding the test data files into
the crypto_test binary. Figuring out every CI's test data story is more
trouble than is worth it. The GTest FileTest runner is considerably
different from the old one:
- It returns void and expects failures to use the GTest EXPECT_* and
ASSERT_* macros, rather than ExpectBytesEqual. This is more monkey
work to convert, but ultimately less work to add new tests. I think
it's also valuable for our FileTest and normal test patterns to align
as much as possible. The line number is emitted via SCOPED_TRACE.
- I've intentionally omitted the Error attribute handling, since that
doesn't work very well with the new callback. This means evp_test.cc
will take a little more work to convert, but this is again to keep our
two test patterns aligned.
- The callback takes a std::function rather than a C-style void pointer.
This means we can go nuts with lambdas. It also places the path first
so clang-format doesn't go nuts.
BUG=129
Change-Id: I0d1920a342b00e64043e3ea05f5f5af57bfe77b3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/16507
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
