[Vol-dev] [Patch] NewObject branch conversion of dlllist module to plugin

[Brendan Dolan-Gavitt]

Sure; to start with I was thinking of writing tests that exercise the  
API, rather than trying to check that the output is letter-perfect.  
IE, we know that for xp-laptop-2005-07-04-1430.img and DTB=0x39000,  
VA 0x823c87c0 should translate to physical address 0x23c87c0; a  
process list should return 44 processes, etc...

Basically, for the major API functions that back the commands, I'd  
like to be able to verify that they report the same results for a  
known image, even as the underlying implementation may change. Of  
course, that makes some assumptions that the current implementation  
is correct (which, as it turns out, was *not* the case with  
handles.py until recently), but it seems like a good starting point.

-Brendan

On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Tim wrote:

>> What do people think about perhaps adding in some unit tests so we
>> can make sure we don't introduce regressions as we port things over
>> to NewObject? I'm thinking that perhaps we could base them off of a
>> well-known image (like the NIST xpsp2 images).
>>
>> Anyways, just a thought. If I have some time in the next week I'll
>> see how hard it would be to implement some tests like these using
>> the unittest module.
>
> I think unit tests are a great idea.  At a minimum, system tests that
> focus on particular commands.  Over the last few reglookup releases
> I've mostly been running the same commands on old versions and new
> versions, then doing semi-scripted diffs between the output.
> Scripting something like that would be a start (though it clearly has
> limitations in the long run).
>
> If you come up with anything, I'd be interested to hear about how you
> implemented it.
>
> cheers,
> tim
>