[RFC][icedtea-web] extend reproducers engine for signed applications

Omair Majid omajid at redhat.com
Tue Jun 21 07:00:35 PDT 2011

On 06/21/2011 09:15 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Hi!
> Most of the basic 12 reproducers is throwiing (correct) exception when
> application is not signed. But when it is signed, then they should make
> theirs changes.

In general, I dont think we _need_ to have a signed application test for 
every unsigned application test. Some tests may not make much sense in a 
trusted application context. And I dont know if doubling the number of 
our tests (assuming we have a signed test for every unsigned test) is a 
great idea.

That said, we certainly will need to add (at least some) signed 
application tests - either when bugs are found, or we are implementing 
some new features.

> My ideas was to make duplicatre of each jar fromsimple reproducers and
> sign (self signed - is that enough?) this copy (eg change name of jar to
> "sameAsOriginal-signed.jar" although to reuse jnlp files bounded to this
> jar so they will be named eg sameAsBefore-signed.jnlp and point to
> signed jar. Just testcases will ne necessary to write for signed
> applications again.
> Or to crate directory beside "simple" called "signed" where will be
> sources, resources and testcases for autoamticly compiled and signed
> applets. I would prefere second option, althoug it will leed to small
> duplicate code, it seems clearer to me.

Personally, I prefer the second approach which makes the test behaviour 
more explicit. I agree that it keeps things more obvious (but at the 
cost of some duplication).


More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list