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

[c]

(Forgot to hit "reply all" in my mail client)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:22:21 +1000
teor <teor at riseup.net> wrote:

> This ticket is a cleanup ticket, after some other changes have been made.
> I've edited the ticket description to make that clearer.  

Understood, thank you for clarifying.

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

From this and the parent #33050 it doesn't seem to me like the request
is very clear. 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. I figure it is wise
regardless to ask for clarification here and read while I wait for
feedback. Efficiency and all :)

Caitlin