1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <steve@mistfpga.net>) id 1Sx5ch-0003GG-CA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:20:11 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mistfpga.net
designates 208.91.199.207 as permitted sender)
client-ip=208.91.199.207; envelope-from=steve@mistfpga.net;
helo=us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com;
Received: from us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com ([208.91.199.207])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Sx5cg-0000pm-Ex for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:20:11 +0000
Received: from [10.20.4.56] (unknown [210.87.17.162])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: steve@mistfpga.net)
by us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D27B41DF0681;
Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:20:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <501B1905.4090704@mistfpga.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:19:17 +1000
From: steve <steve@mistfpga.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
References: <5019153B.3090001@mistfpga.net>
<CAKm8k+2X8Tode5foBSmVGjbvtL8rkRKqNXKLTnmdnbS6FQxyOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+2X8Tode5foBSmVGjbvtL8rkRKqNXKLTnmdnbS6FQxyOg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.501B1935.000F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000,
reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 172.16.214.28
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Sx5cg-0000pm-Ex
Cc: Bitcoin Development List <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The Bitcoin Testing Project
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 00:20:11 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/08/2012 01:07, Gary Rowe wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> This looks like a good idea to me. The test suites could act
> similarly to the 100% Pure Java approach that successfully fended
> off a lot of corrupting influences to Java over the years.
>
> Maybe it's worth putting together a small starter suite of tests
> and showing them to the community then providing a suitable
> process, perhaps through BIPs, to allow tests to be created,
> reviewed and updated before getting incorporated into a reference.
> I imagine a BIP would cover an aspect of the blockchain rather than
> a single test or test suite since having that many BIPs would get
> onerous fast.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Gary
>
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the response. :)
I have started all this in bettermeans, but lost a lot of work (which
I am working on how to redo - but I am on holiday at the moment, and
have restricted access to my test setups)
Here is the discussion thread I had with gavin about acceptance tests.
https://secure.bettermeans.com/boards/4316/topics/7261
Here is the work I have currently done (note, it was losing all the
General Acceptance Tests and getting no response from bettermeans that
has lead me to not want to use it)
also note that the terminology I have been using is a little wrong, I
refer to release 0.7 as testnet release 0.7 - I will tidy it up. - I
did this before and it looks like it got reverted somehow.
here is the main wiki space that I have been using.
https://secure.bettermeans.com/projects/4256/wiki
For the General Accceptance Tests, check
https://secure.bettermeans.com/projects/4256/wiki/Dev_general_acceptance_tests
These are the basic acceptance tests based off the changelog
https://secure.bettermeans.com/projects/4256/wiki/Dev_acceptance_tests
However, notice no tests are in there yet.
There is plenty more stuff on bettermeans so please go have a poke
around. I will try to get at least a wiki setup on a vps I have
control of (in germany, and provided by CINFU and paid for with
bitcoins) and get the stuff moved over and put the tests back up. I
can do a limited amount of testing if the release is to happen in the
next week or two, So I will focus my efforts on the installation tests
and wallet tests. Ideally I would like to get all the GAT's done.
Hopefully this fleshes things out a bit more.
Please feel free to add/edit but remember your stuff might magically
disappear, it might be better to wait for the wiki move. I intend on
doing the wiki move today. but that might not happen.
(I have a feeling that it was me adding stuff from an account that is
not on the BTP that blew things up, just a feeling though)
I would like to keep tests informal if possible, but that kinda goes
against the purpose of the tests. this is a bit tricky to explain if
you have not had a look at bettermeans. bettermeans kinda has its own
BIP and voting mechanism, which is quite nice and it is what I want to
emulate - this should reduce the need for vetting of tests... have a
look at what is there and see what you think.
:)
cheers,
steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQGxkFAAoJEFvEB9dQFvtQeD0IAJe9BJz/mv+kZjhk7LH1d7HH
c46D7s2Y8a+2Yobve4KtRGMoQZQiqqXGIdZ2nHVO77s0zICixqdtcKlRvBZHybw9
pB8hFYmeBdXvMHj7TR4kMbMKqTJ2z/B6m1qEKFfCRIXQXnyD5qNYhFocyQMwz53A
dkwhpoiWNVqcgnz51XEnphyohu0TPsPbOOyCrT7ORdyAgLJAs5Ig1sKbTAdSxOux
flEYKOVk0gse2b8lO2ly+eLwcQgI7jrzy+qkSKmNajRKFdvHUODXo4RraR08qiaJ
SUpmN/43uQZ4atMdOCZxD5DWKjBO96sj6mkB/po5lzIEEtkhzyp/wmKdHtlvZ/Q=
=Fonn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
