-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
test: rename some assets #155
Conversation
Per #153: this is nowhere near complete, but makes the relationships between a few assets and their filenames slightly clearer. Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
The new name better reflects the fact that the test contains an intoto payload with a DSSE log entry. Signed-off-by: William Woodruff <william@trailofbits.com>
client: SigstoreClient, make_materials_by_type: _MakeMaterialsByType | ||
) -> None: | ||
""" | ||
Test the happy path of verification for DSSE bundle w/ custom trust root | ||
""" | ||
materials: BundleMaterials | ||
input_path, materials = make_materials_by_type("d.txt", BundleMaterials) | ||
materials.bundle = Path("d.txt.good.sigstore.json") | ||
materials.bundle = Path("d.txt+custom-trust-root_intoto_dsse.good.v0.2.sigstore.json") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is the use of +
intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, that was me trying to think of a reasonable delimiter to split the "original signed filename" component from the "explanation of what this tests" component. We could pick another delimiter, though, if you think that one's confusing!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah seems like we're putting the target infra into this filename when our naming schema doesn't support it? Not sure if another parameter on the filename for staging/prod/custom-trust-root is the right option though (especially since we configure lots of staging tests via flag).
Maybe naming for this one case doesn't matter that much yet. We can rename later 🤷 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I'm starting to think that there's no good naming convention that'll encapsulate all of the varieties of states we want to test. I'm going to close this for now while I think about alternative approaches.
Per #153: this is nowhere near complete, but makes the relationships between a few assets and their filenames slightly clearer.