This is a fairly shallow conversion because of the somewhat screwy Error
lines in the test which may target random functions like
EVP_PKEY_CTX_set_signature_md. We probably should revise this, perhaps
moving those to normal tests and leaving error codes to the core
operation itself.
BUG=129
Change-Id: I27dcc945058911b2de40cd48466d4e0366813a12
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/16988
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
BUG=129
Change-Id: Ia8b0639489fea817be4bb24f0457629f0fd6a815
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/16947
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>
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>
