summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/integration/test-apt-update-expected-size
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-11-04support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages fileDavid Kalnischkies
Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring the user to download the same information again and again. There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/ Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages, so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever". Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that 'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips, too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this 'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository including an empty file). The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there, we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
2015-09-15tests: don't use hardcoded port for http and httpsDavid Kalnischkies
This allows running tests in parallel. Git-Dch: Ignore
2015-06-09do not request files if we expect an IMS hitDavid Kalnischkies
If we have a file on disk and the hashes are the same in the new Release file and the old one we have on disk we know that if we ask the server for the file, we will at best get an IMS hit – at worse the server doesn't support this and sends us the (unchanged) file and we have to run all our checks on it again for nothing. So, we can save ourselves (and the servers) some unneeded requests if we figure this out on our own.
2015-06-09rework hashsum verification in the acquire systemDavid Kalnischkies
Having every item having its own code to verify the file(s) it handles is an errorprune process and easy to break, especially if items move through various stages (download, uncompress, patching, …). With a giant rework we centralize (most of) the verification to have a better enforcement rate and (hopefully) less chance for bugs, but it breaks the ABI bigtime in exchange – and as we break it anyway, it is broken even harder. It shouldn't effect most frontends as they don't deal with the acquire system at all or implement their own items, but some do and will need to be patched (might be an opportunity to use apt on-board material). The theory is simple: Items implement methods to decide if hashes need to be checked (in this stage) and to return the expected hashes for this item (in this stage). The verification itself is done in worker message passing which has the benefit that a hashsum error is now a proper error for the acquire system rather than a Done() which is later revised to a Failed().
2015-05-13detect Releasefile IMS hits even if the server doesn'tDavid Kalnischkies
Not all servers we are talking to support If-Modified-Since and some are not even sending Last-Modified for us, so in an effort to detect such hits we run a hashsum check on the 'old' compared to the 'new' file, we got the hashes for the 'new' already for "free" from the methods anyway and hence just need to calculated the old ones. This allows us to detect hits even with unsupported servers, which in turn means we benefit from all the new hit behavior also here.
2015-05-11improve partial/ cleanup in abort and failure casesDavid Kalnischkies
Especially pdiff-enhanced downloads have the tendency to fail for various reasons from which we can recover and even a successful download used to leave the old unpatched index in partial/. By adding a new method responsible for making the transaction of an individual file happen we can at specialisations especially for abort cases to deal with the cleanup. This also helps in keeping the compressed indexes around if another index failed instead of keeping the decompressed files, which we wouldn't pick up in the next call.
2015-04-19a hit on Release files means the indexes will be hits tooDavid Kalnischkies
If we get a IMSHit for the Transaction-Manager (= the InRelease file or as its still supported fallback Release + Release.gpg combo) we can assume that every file we would queue based on this manager, but already have locally is current and hence would get an IMSHit, too. We therefore save us and the server the trouble and skip the queuing in this case. Beside speeding up repetative executions of 'apt-get update' this way we also avoid hitting hashsum errors if the indexes are in fact already updated, but the Release file isn't yet as it is the case on well behaving mirrors as Release files is updated last. The implementation is a bit harder than the theory makes it sound as we still have to keep reverifying the Release files (e.g. to detect now expired once to avoid an attacker being able to silently stale us) and have to handle cases in which the Release file hits, but some indexes aren't present (e.g. user added a new foreign architecture).
2015-04-19improve https method queue progress reportingDavid Kalnischkies
The worker expects that the methods tell him when they start or finish downloading a file. Various information pieces are passed along in this report including the (expected) filesize. https was using a "global" struct for reporting which made it 'reuse' incorrect values in some cases like a non-existent InRelease fallbacking to Release{,.gpg} resulting in a size-mismatch warning. Reducing the scope and redesigning the setting of the values we can fix this and related issues. Closes: 777565, 781509 Thanks: Robert Edmonds and Anders Kaseorg for initial patchs
2015-03-16test exitcode as well as string equalityDavid Kalnischkies
We use test{success,failure} now all over the place in the framework, so its only consequencial to do this in the situations in which we test for a specific output as well. Git-Dch: Ignore
2014-10-20testcases: do not allow warnings in testsuccessDavid Kalnischkies
Adds a new testwarning which tests for zero exit and the presents of a warning in the output, failing if either is not the case or if an error is found, too. This allows us to change testsuccess to accept only totally successful executions (= without warnings) which should help finding regressions. Git-Dch: Ignore
2014-10-20check for failure message in testsuccess/failureDavid Kalnischkies
These functions check the exit code of the command, but for apt commands we can go further and require an error message for non-zero exits and none for zero exits. Git-Dch: Ignore
2014-10-20check lists/ content in tests doing rollbackDavid Kalnischkies
Git-Dch: Ignore
2014-10-13fix compile and tests errorDavid Kalnischkies
I am pretty sure I did that before committing broken stuff… Git-Dch: Ignore
2014-10-07Send "Fail-Reason: MaximumSizeExceeded" from the methodMichael Vogt
Communicate the fail reason from the methods to the parent and Rename() failed files.
2014-10-07Add new Acquire::MaxReleaseFileSize=10*1000*1000 optionMichael Vogt
This option controls the maximum size of Release/Release.gpg/InRelease files. The rational is that we do not know the size of these files in advance and we want to protect against a denial of service attack where someone sends us endless amounts of data until the disk is full (we do know the size all other files (Packages/Sources/debs)).
2014-10-07make expected-size a maximum-size check as this is what we want at this pointMichael Vogt
2014-10-06make http size check workMichael Vogt