605134 - Implement Security - 'More Information' button test

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Mozilla QA Graveyard :: Mozmill Tests, defect)

Description

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

In bug 600196, the test testSecurityInfoViaPadlock was removed from the repository. This test covered the Litmus Case [1]. The test had code that we should be able to reuse in a similar test to test the security 'More Information' button following the Litmus Case [2].

[1] Firefox 4 FFT:[security] Page Info Security Tab via status bar padlock
https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=10194

[2] Firefox 4 FFT: [security:larry] "More Information" button
https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=11322

Anthony, I don't have administrative privileges to disable the former Litmus Test Case. Can you please do so?

Comment 1

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

Code from the 1.9.2 branch version of the removed test can be viewed here: [1]

[1] http://hg.mozilla.org/qa/mozmill-tests/file/833704977bd6/firefox/testSecurity/testSecurityInfoViaPadlock.js

Comment 2

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

Attachment: Patch v1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitFor)

This test is similar to the one removed. We reuse the security pane testing code that is triggered from clicking the 'More Information' button in the security popup from the identity box click. This test is for trunk (default) only.

Comment 3

[Geo Mealer [:geo] -- This account is inactive after 2015-07-07]

Comment on attachment 484000 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitFor)

We pulled all the waitFors in anticipation of 1.5.1 (Bug 604743)  Would probably be best if you replaced these waitFors with waitForEval too then resubmitted.

Comment 4

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

Attachment: Patch v1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitForEval)

- waitFor
+ waitForEval

Comment 5

[Geo Mealer [:geo] -- This account is inactive after 2015-07-07]

Comment on attachment 484152 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitForEval)

>+  controller.waitFor(function() {
>+    return webIDDomainLabel.getNode().value.indexOf(cert.commonName) != -1;
>+  }, TIMEOUT, 100, "Cert name should be the same as the web site label");

There were two in there. Quick respin?

Comment 6

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

Attachment: Patch v1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitForEval)

Thanks.

Comment 7

[Geo Mealer [:geo] -- This account is inactive after 2015-07-07]

Comment on attachment 484173 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitForEval)

>+  controller.waitForEval("subject.domainLabel.indexOf(subject.CName) != -1", TIMEOUT, 100, {
>+               domainLabel: webIDDomainLabel.getNode().value,
>+               CName: cert.commonName
>+             });
>+  

Won't work.  You're resolving webIDDomainLabel.getNode().value once, when the subject is built.  So it'll always be whatever it was at the beginning of the call.  You need to pass the object that dynamically changes so it can be re-queried inside the waitFor loop:

{domainLabel: webIDDomainLabel.getNode(), CName: cert.commonName}

...then eval "subject.domainLabel.value.indexOf(subject.CName) != -1"

Comment 8

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

Attachment: Patch v1.1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitForEval)

Makes sense, thanks!

Comment 9

[Geo Mealer [:geo] -- This account is inactive after 2015-07-07]

Comment on attachment 484316 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1.1 - (default) [online test-verisign] (waitForEval)

LGTM. Landed on default as http://hg.mozilla.org/qa/mozmill-tests/rev/7e65de9ae61b

Comment 10

[Aaron Train [:aaronmt]]

Updated Firefox 4 FFT: [security:larry] "More Information" button
https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=11322

Created Firefox 4 Mozmill - All: [security:larry] "More Information" button
https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=13684

Comment 11

[Henrik Skupin [:whimboo][⌚️UTC+1]]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Updated Firefox 4 FFT: [security:larry] "More Information" button
> https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=11322
> 
> Created Firefox 4 Mozmill - All: [security:larry] "More Information" button
> https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=13684

Why have you created a new Litmus test for? Please delete 13684 and add all the information to 11322. See the following test how it has to look like:

https://litmus.mozilla.org/show_test.cgi?id=10077

Comment 12

[Henrik Skupin [:whimboo][⌚️UTC+1]]

As given by Aaron yesterday on IRC, the tests have been updated.

Comment 13

[u279076]

I'm wondering if we should add this test to the branches as well.  I know that this test was originally created as a replacement for the Pad Lock test.  However, the site-identity > more info path exists on branches.

In the case of default, I think we just want this test.

In the case of branches, I think we should have padlock and this test.

Alternatively, we could extend the padlock test to cover the site-id > more info path as well.  If so, I can cover this in a new bug.

Aaron, Geo, Henrik, what are your thoughts?

Comment 14

[Henrik Skupin [:whimboo][⌚️UTC+1]]

(In reply to comment #13)
> I'm wondering if we should add this test to the branches as well.  I know that
> this test was originally created as a replacement for the Pad Lock test. 
> However, the site-identity > more info path exists on branches.
> 
> Aaron, Geo, Henrik, what are your thoughts?

As far as what I get out from our meeting yesterday we do not want to work on new tests for older branches. But beside that how much steps would be duplicated on the branches compared to existing tests?

Comment 15

[u279076]

> As far as what I get out from our meeting yesterday we do not want to work on
> new tests for older branches. But beside that how much steps would be
> duplicated on the branches compared to existing tests?

Hmm...true...I forgot about that whole thing already.

Let's table that idea for now.

Comment 16

[Henrik Skupin [:whimboo][⌚️UTC+1]]

Move of Mozmill Test related project bugs to newly created components. You can
filter out those emails by using "Mozmill-Tests-to-MozillaQA" as criteria.