Re: m2crypto beta release

Matt Rodriguez wrote:
> 1. test_ssl.py is not working for me. The problem is the unittests for
> the SSLClientTestCase. All of these tests fail with a Connection refused
> error. I haven't looked into
> this any deeper than this, because I'm just doing some preliminary
> checks right now. The rest of the unittests work flawlessly for me.

The SSL tests are somewhat problematic. They try to launch the openssl
command line test server against which the client testcases run. So if
you don't have OpenSSL in your path, or have some firewall rules you
might get failed results.

The good thing about using that external program is that it does more
"real" testing than running against an in-memory test server. But that
would be a nice alternative to have.

> 2. There still are a bunch of compiler warnings. These just need to go
> away before the final release. I've noticed that SWIG-1.3.24 generates
> code that
> produces compiler warnings, these warnings go away in SWIG 1.3.25. I
> know I suggested that we should make 1.3.24 a requirement, but I would
> say that we should
> probably just require 1.3.25. We should have a simple check in the
> setup.py script to ensure that we are using an appropriate version of
> SWIG. Below you'll find the
> compiler warnings that we need to get rid of.

I don't think the requirements can be changed this late.

It's also problematic that you get different warnings based on different
SWIG versions, compiler versions and OpenSSL versions. I've fixed most
warnings, but it was starting to look like spending more effort on these
would become harder and harder without actually buying that much.

Some examples of frustrating warnings include a bunch of functions that
SWIG generates but which are not used.

I can work on integrating patches for the warnings, but I doubt I would
be doing much work myself on these for 0.16.

> 3. I ran valgrind on all of the unittest files except, test_ssl,
> test_ssl_win, and alltests, I found some leaks in test_x509, but I
> suspect that it is the issue is how the tests are
> written, and not any underlying problem in the toolkit. Below you'll
> find the valgrind output

Could you explain how to run Valgrind on the tests, I am afraid I've
never used Valgrind? (Well, I've used kcachegrind to view python hotshot
profiles, which isn't helping much.)

I'll also see if I can figure out how to read the results you posted.

Thanks,

-- 
  Heikki Toivonen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEhJXmb8x8KoP+JuwRAro/AJ99SGldKyZ1BesELp490l+5yFvLGwCeIfys
uwvZ99rKId0HWw+qCDp/9S0=
=qn4L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----