Skip to content

Remove python integration test in-the-past scaffolding #8086

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aarongable
Copy link
Contributor

@aarongable aarongable commented Mar 28, 2025

Delete test_ocsp_resigning and test_ocsp_exp_unauth. Although these tests are not replicated in our Go integration tests, they are testing very stable parts of our code that we do not plan to modify until we delete it entirely.

Removing these tests allows us to remove the "setup_six_months_ago" and "setup_twenty_days_ago" scaffolding in our python integration test harness, greatly simplifying that python code and reducing integration test runtime by about 30 seconds.

Part of #4934

@aarongable aarongable changed the title Rm multistart scaffolding Remove python integration test in-the-past scaffolding Mar 28, 2025
@aarongable aarongable force-pushed the rm-multistart-scaffolding branch from f8ecd65 to 08ea010 Compare March 28, 2025 04:44
@aarongable aarongable force-pushed the rm-multistart-scaffolding branch from 08ea010 to 88a6295 Compare March 31, 2025 16:15
@aarongable aarongable marked this pull request as ready for review March 31, 2025 16:55
@aarongable aarongable requested a review from a team as a code owner March 31, 2025 16:55
@aarongable aarongable requested a review from jsha March 31, 2025 16:55
@jsha
Copy link
Contributor

jsha commented Apr 2, 2025

I like the idea of saving 30 seconds on our integration tests, and I agree that this code is stable and going away soon with the removal of OCSP services. But we shouldn't land this before the actual removal of OCSP services, since we are still responsible for correct operation until then. Let's hold this PR until that happens. Other than the question of timing, looks good.

Also lol that setup_six_months_ago() uses a list comprehension and setup_twenty_days_ago() uses a for loop even though they do the exact same thing and are very close to each other. :D

@aarongable aarongable marked this pull request as draft April 17, 2025 16:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants