BIND 10 #954: avoid using macro in crypto_unittests

[BIND 10 Development]

#954: avoid using macro in crypto_unittests
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:         |             Milestone:  Next-Sprint-
  defect                             |  Proposed
                   Priority:  major  |            Resolution:
                  Component:         |             Sensitive:  0
  Unclassified                       |           Sub-Project:  DNS
                   Keywords:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  0.0
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |           Total Hours:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:3 jelte]:
 > The patch does not apply cleanly to master (anymore?), but was quite
 easy to reproduce (i could upload a new one if you want). In order for the
 tests not to fail though, i had to remove a temporary bit of code from
 HMAC::verify() (the same return false i had to remove for #951).
 >
 > Code looks much better, however, it is still a bit more brittle than i'd
 like to see; so i have one more suggestion the for-loop at the end of
 doRFC4231Tests() should have its conditional check on the lengths of all
 three vectors (or there should be a test just before it to check they are
 of equal size), otherwise one if someone was to remove one of the
 elements, it would segfault.

 Thanks for the check.

 I believe I've implemented the suggested idea (with trivial
 adjustments to apply the diff).  I've created a separate branch,
 trac954.

 As for the failed tests, as we discussed we need to skip the tests for
 now (dependency on #920).  I've disabled them for now (via a kind of
 quick hack, hoping we address #920 in not so long future) and left
 comments about the dependency both in the code and the ticket #920.

 Is it okay now?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/954#comment:6>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development