[tor-bugs] #31637 [Core Tor/Tor]: Make sure we have test coverage for Option, +Option and /Option across defaults, torrc, command line

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#31637: Make sure we have test coverage for Option, +Option and /Option across
defaults, torrc, command line
-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  teor                         |          Owner:  nickm
     Type:  enhancement                  |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium                       |      Milestone:  Tor:
                                         |  0.4.2.x-final
Component:  Core Tor/Tor                 |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                       |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  network-team-roadmap-august  |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:  #29211                       |         Points:
 Reviewer:  teor                         |        Sponsor:
-----------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Comment (by teor):

 Replying to [comment:14 nickm]:
 > Okay, I did a less big test suite than I had expected here, but I
 believe it covers +Option and /Option.
 >
 > I'm not sure how exactly to make it handle `%include` though -- The
 problem is that `%include` relative paths are apparently interpreted
 relative to Tor's cwd.

 Oh dear. I thought we tried to stop using the cwd for everything.

 Maybe we should open a ticket to run tests from an empty temp cwd, so we
 catch issues like this in future.

 > I think my options are:
 >   * Defer integration testing for `%include` directives.

 Adds risk to refactoring, let's try something else first.

 >   * Make sure that the test script runs from a known location inside the
 source directory.

 Good idea, and probably something we want to do for test stability anyway.

 >   * Add a step to generate the `%include` paths in our examples before
 we run the test scripts.

 Yeah let's not unless we have to: unless we get that step exactly right,
 it could cause instability or failures.

 >   * Open a ticket to change how relative paths are interpreted by
 `%include`.

 Yes I think we should do this long-term.

 > I think that the second idea is reasonable for now, but the fourth might
 be what we want to do long-term.  What do you think?

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31637#comment:15>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online