[tor-dev] Chutney tests fail for tor/maint-0.3.5 (bug #33677)
teor at riseup.net
Wed Apr 1 10:06:41 UTC 2020
> On 1 Apr 2020, at 18:58, c <c at chroniko.jp> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:22:21 +1000
> teor <teor at riseup.net> wrote:
>> Check for onion service descriptor uploads:
>> 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).
Chutney is a custom tool that we use to integration test tor networks.
> I need to make sure I understand #33609
> - Is the requested functionality only for Chutney or will Tor
> potentially need any changes to allow for HS verification?
The required messages are already in tor's onion service logs, so I don't
think that tor will need any changes.
I tried to describe the changes in detail on the ticket:
Please let me know if you have any further questions. We're talking in a
lot of detail now, so let's continue on the ticket. That way, any
reviewers can also see the conversation.
> - 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?
The info-level log output of the tor instances that chutney spawns.
> - For "check v2 and v3 onion services" -- check if they've propagated
> the network?
Check if v2 and v3 onion services have uploaded their descriptors.
> - 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.
It's an arbitrary number, greater than 100%, so we can integrate it
with the existing bootstrap checks. (But that might not be necessary.)
> From this and the parent #33050 it doesn't seem to me like the request
> is very clear.
You're right, the ticket contains my rough notes and hints. I didn't
know what level of detail people would need.
> 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.
The proposals might help, but they are mainly focused on tor changes,
not chutney changes.
> I figure it is wise
> regardless to ask for clarification here and read while I wait for
> feedback. Efficiency and all :)
Please feel free to ask further questions on this list. But let's try
to have detailed discussions on the relevant tickets, so reviewers can
see the conversation.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
More information about the tor-dev