Mailing List Archive

Current status of mod_h2 test suite?
I try to make the mod_h2 test suite run for me. Some difficulties are
expected due to my non-standard setup, but the first test that seems to
fail in a way I am not directly blaming myself is

fuzz header
* on http://test.example.org:12345: super-long...--- gen/expect_431
2022-04-05 13:25:40.081886486 +0200
+++ gen/result 2022-04-05 13:25:40.138887222 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
---> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 0
+--> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 273
0/0/1/0/0 (2/3/4/5/0xx)

It seems the test expects 0 body bytes but the web server sends:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML
2.0//EN">\n<html><head>\n<title>431 Request Header Fields Too
Large</title>\n</head><body>\n<h1>Request Header Fields Too
Large</h1>\n<p>The server refused this request because\nthe request
header fields are too large.</p>\n</body></html>\n

which doesn't look like an error. So is this test broken? Is the general
expectation, that other fuzzing tests will succeed?

Thanks for the test suite anyways. All tests before that first fuzzing
test work.

Best regards,

Rainer
Re: Current status of mod_h2 test suite? [ In reply to ]
Which test suite, the one in trunk or the one from github? Both work best against the respective source.

> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:47 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>
> I try to make the mod_h2 test suite run for me. Some difficulties are expected due to my non-standard setup, but the first test that seems to fail in a way I am not directly blaming myself is
>
> fuzz header
> * on http://test.example.org:12345: super-long...--- gen/expect_431 2022-04-05 13:25:40.081886486 +0200
> +++ gen/result 2022-04-05 13:25:40.138887222 +0200
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> ---> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 0
> +--> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 273
> 0/0/1/0/0 (2/3/4/5/0xx)
>
> It seems the test expects 0 body bytes but the web server sends:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">\n<html><head>\n<title>431 Request Header Fields Too Large</title>\n</head><body>\n<h1>Request Header Fields Too Large</h1>\n<p>The server refused this request because\nthe request header fields are too large.</p>\n</body></html>\n
>
> which doesn't look like an error. So is this test broken? Is the general expectation, that other fuzzing tests will succeed?
>
> Thanks for the test suite anyways. All tests before that first fuzzing test work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rainer
Re: Current status of mod_h2 test suite? [ In reply to ]
Hi Stefan,

Am 05.04.2022 um 13:49 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
> Which test suite, the one in trunk or the one from github? Both work best against the respective source.

the test suite in

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/mod_h2/trunk

Which one would you recommend to test http2 in a 2.4.x release (candidate)?

Thanks and regards,

Rainer

>> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:47 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>>
>> I try to make the mod_h2 test suite run for me. Some difficulties are expected due to my non-standard setup, but the first test that seems to fail in a way I am not directly blaming myself is
>>
>> fuzz header
>> * on http://test.example.org:12345: super-long...--- gen/expect_431 2022-04-05 13:25:40.081886486 +0200
>> +++ gen/result 2022-04-05 13:25:40.138887222 +0200
>> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>> ---> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 0
>> +--> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 273
>> 0/0/1/0/0 (2/3/4/5/0xx)
>>
>> It seems the test expects 0 body bytes but the web server sends:
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">\n<html><head>\n<title>431 Request Header Fields Too Large</title>\n</head><body>\n<h1>Request Header Fields Too Large</h1>\n<p>The server refused this request because\nthe request header fields are too large.</p>\n</body></html>\n
>>
>> which doesn't look like an error. So is this test broken? Is the general expectation, that other fuzzing tests will succeed?
>>
>> Thanks for the test suite anyways. All tests before that first fuzzing test work.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rainer
Re: Current status of mod_h2 test suite? [ In reply to ]
> Am 05.04.2022 um 14:01 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:49 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>> Which test suite, the one in trunk or the one from github? Both work best against the respective source.
>
> the test suite in
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/mod_h2/trunk

Oh, forgot about that one. Should remove it.
>
> Which one would you recommend to test http2 in a 2.4.x release (candidate)?

The one in ^/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/test/modules/http2

This is the one (and the corresponding in trunk) that also runs as part of our travis CI.

There is a README.pytest in test with some advice to set it up and use.

Kind Regards,
Stefan

>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Rainer
>
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:47 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>>>
>>> I try to make the mod_h2 test suite run for me. Some difficulties are expected due to my non-standard setup, but the first test that seems to fail in a way I am not directly blaming myself is
>>>
>>> fuzz header
>>> * on http://test.example.org:12345: super-long...--- gen/expect_431 2022-04-05 13:25:40.081886486 +0200
>>> +++ gen/result 2022-04-05 13:25:40.138887222 +0200
>>> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>>> ---> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 0
>>> +--> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 273
>>> 0/0/1/0/0 (2/3/4/5/0xx)
>>>
>>> It seems the test expects 0 body bytes but the web server sends:
>>>
>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">\n<html><head>\n<title>431 Request Header Fields Too Large</title>\n</head><body>\n<h1>Request Header Fields Too Large</h1>\n<p>The server refused this request because\nthe request header fields are too large.</p>\n</body></html>\n
>>>
>>> which doesn't look like an error. So is this test broken? Is the general expectation, that other fuzzing tests will succeed?
>>>
>>> Thanks for the test suite anyways. All tests before that first fuzzing test work.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Rainer
Re: Current status of mod_h2 test suite? [ In reply to ]
Thaks, will switch to that one. Should have reembered it ...

Am 05.04.2022 um 14:04 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>
>
>> Am 05.04.2022 um 14:01 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>>
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:49 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>>> Which test suite, the one in trunk or the one from github? Both work best against the respective source.
>>
>> the test suite in
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/mod_h2/trunk
>
> Oh, forgot about that one. Should remove it.
>>
>> Which one would you recommend to test http2 in a 2.4.x release (candidate)?
>
> The one in ^/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/test/modules/http2
>
> This is the one (and the corresponding in trunk) that also runs as part of our travis CI.
>
> There is a README.pytest in test with some advice to set it up and use.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Stefan
>
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:47 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>>>>
>>>> I try to make the mod_h2 test suite run for me. Some difficulties are expected due to my non-standard setup, but the first test that seems to fail in a way I am not directly blaming myself is
>>>>
>>>> fuzz header
>>>> * on http://test.example.org:12345: super-long...--- gen/expect_431 2022-04-05 13:25:40.081886486 +0200
>>>> +++ gen/result 2022-04-05 13:25:40.138887222 +0200
>>>> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>>>> ---> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 0
>>>> +--> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 273
>>>> 0/0/1/0/0 (2/3/4/5/0xx)
>>>>
>>>> It seems the test expects 0 body bytes but the web server sends:
>>>>
>>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">\n<html><head>\n<title>431 Request Header Fields Too Large</title>\n</head><body>\n<h1>Request Header Fields Too Large</h1>\n<p>The server refused this request because\nthe request header fields are too large.</p>\n</body></html>\n
>>>>
>>>> which doesn't look like an error. So is this test broken? Is the general expectation, that other fuzzing tests will succeed?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the test suite anyways. All tests before that first fuzzing test work.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rainer
Re: Current status of mod_h2 test suite? [ In reply to ]
> Am 05.04.2022 um 14:08 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>
> Thaks, will switch to that one. Should have reembered it ...

All fine. Hit me with questions if it gives you problems.

>
> Am 05.04.2022 um 14:04 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 14:01 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:49 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>>>> Which test suite, the one in trunk or the one from github? Both work best against the respective source.
>>>
>>> the test suite in
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/mod_h2/trunk
>> Oh, forgot about that one. Should remove it.
>>>
>>> Which one would you recommend to test http2 in a 2.4.x release (candidate)?
>> The one in ^/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/test/modules/http2
>> This is the one (and the corresponding in trunk) that also runs as part of our travis CI.
>> There is a README.pytest in test with some advice to set it up and use.
>> Kind Regards,
>> Stefan
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>>
>>>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 13:47 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I try to make the mod_h2 test suite run for me. Some difficulties are expected due to my non-standard setup, but the first test that seems to fail in a way I am not directly blaming myself is
>>>>>
>>>>> fuzz header
>>>>> * on http://test.example.org:12345: super-long...--- gen/expect_431 2022-04-05 13:25:40.081886486 +0200
>>>>> +++ gen/result 2022-04-05 13:25:40.138887222 +0200
>>>>> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>>>>> ---> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 0
>>>>> +--> 0:00001 GET / -> 431 273
>>>>> 0/0/1/0/0 (2/3/4/5/0xx)
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the test expects 0 body bytes but the web server sends:
>>>>>
>>>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">\n<html><head>\n<title>431 Request Header Fields Too Large</title>\n</head><body>\n<h1>Request Header Fields Too Large</h1>\n<p>The server refused this request because\nthe request header fields are too large.</p>\n</body></html>\n
>>>>>
>>>>> which doesn't look like an error. So is this test broken? Is the general expectation, that other fuzzing tests will succeed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the test suite anyways. All tests before that first fuzzing test work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rainer