[tor-dev] Chutney tests fail for tor/maint-0.3.5 (bug #33677)

[teor]

Hi Caitlin,

> On 1 Apr 2020, at 18:58, c <c at chroniko.jp> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:22:21 +1000
> teor <teor at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> Check for onion service descriptor uploads:
>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609
>> 
>> Someone else is working on the microdescriptor changes at the moment.
>> 
>> Would you like to start working on the onion service descriptor changes?
> 
> Sure, it would give me an opportunity to learn about onion descriptors
> in more detail. I will get started on it.
> 
> But first, looking at it more, I think my struggle with understanding
> what to do stems from my unfamiliarity with the Chutney codebase (first
> I have heard of the tool was with this project, even though commits
> date back to 2011).

Chutney is a custom tool that we use to integration test tor networks.

> I need to make sure I understand #33609
> sufficiently:
> 
> - Is the requested functionality only for Chutney or will Tor
>  potentially need any changes to allow for HS verification?

The required messages are already in tor's onion service logs, so I don't
think that tor will need any changes.

I tried to describe the changes in detail on the ticket:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33609#comment:5

Please let me know if you have any further questions. We're talking in a
lot of detail now, so let's continue on the ticket. That way, any
reviewers can also see the conversation.

> - So I know where to begin looking in the codebase, the ticket wants us
>  to "check each onion service log" -- is this referring to Tor log
>  output (such as the instances chutney spawns), chutney-specific logs,
>  or something else entirely?

The info-level log output of the tor instances that chutney spawns.

> - For "check v2 and v3 onion services" -- check if they've propagated
>  the network?

Check if v2 and v3 onion services have uploaded their descriptors.

> - For "call it an extra 200% 'bootstrap' stage" -- again is this
>  chutney-specific? I only know bootstrapping percentage from Tor
>  notice-level logging and obviously it only goes up to 100%, so I'm
>  wondering if "200%" is a magic number here or something arbitrary.

It's an arbitrary number, greater than 100%, so we can integrate it
with the existing bootstrap checks. (But that might not be necessary.)

> From this and the parent #33050 it doesn't seem to me like the request
> is very clear.

You're right, the ticket contains my rough notes and hints. I didn't
know what level of detail people would need.

> I am reading proposals 311-313 after sending this
> message so maybe I can come across some answers to my
> questions/confusions via the proposals themselves. The proposals will
> probably give me a better idea of the work I am in for overall, too,
> and perhaps I should have come across them sooner.

The proposals might help, but they are mainly focused on tor changes,
not chutney changes.

> I figure it is wise
> regardless to ask for clarification here and read while I wait for
> feedback. Efficiency and all :)

Please feel free to ask further questions on this list. But let's try
to have detailed discussions on the relevant tickets, so reviewers can
see the conversation.

Thanks!

T

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20200401/72b6fa82/attachment.sig>