BIND 10 #1808: support NSEC for normal NXRRSET in in-memory

[BIND 10 Development]

#1808: support NSEC for normal NXRRSET in in-memory
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  kevin_tes
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:         |  Sprint-20120515
  medium                             |            Resolution:
                  Component:  data   |             Sensitive:  0
  source                             |           Sub-Project:  DNS
                   Keywords:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  3
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |           Total Hours:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:  in-    |
  memory NSEC                        |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:14 kevin_tes]:

 > > > > - Why did you remove the findNSECSigned test?  Due to that some
 test
 > > > >   cases were lost.
 > > > >
 > > > Here,i do think it does not need this test anymore, if NXRRSET case
 completed.
 > >
 > > ?? It doesn't make sense to me.  The original findNSECSigned test had
 > > other cases unrelated to NXRRSET.
 > Until now I do not get the 'lost test cases' for removing
 findNSECSigned. If we keep this test, I think rewrite work should be done.

 In this branch, you did:

 {{{#!diff
 +// Test if NSEC works
 +TEST_F(InMemoryZoneFinderTest, NSEC4NXRRSET) {
 +    findTest(origin_, RRType::TXT(), ZoneFinder::NXRRSET, true,
 +             ConstRRsetPtr());
 +
 +    EXPECT_NO_THROW(EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_nsec_)));
 +    findTest(origin_, RRType::A(), ZoneFinder::NXRRSET, true,
 +             rr_nsec_, ZoneFinder::RESULT_NSEC_SIGNED, NULL,
 +             ZoneFinder::FIND_DNSSEC);
 +}
 +
  TEST_F(InMemoryZoneFinderTest, find) {
      findCheck();
  }
 @@ -1017,10 +1028,6 @@ TEST_F(InMemoryZoneFinderTest, findNSEC3Signed) {
      findCheck(ZoneFinder::RESULT_NSEC3_SIGNED);
  }

 -TEST_F(InMemoryZoneFinderTest, findNSECSigned) {
 -    findCheck(ZoneFinder::RESULT_NSEC_SIGNED);
 -}
 -
 }}}

 and findCheck does the following:

 {{{#!cpp
 void
 InMemoryZoneFinderTest::findCheck(ZoneFinder::FindResultFlags
 expected_flags) {
     // Fill some data inside
     // Now put all the data we have there. It should throw nothing
     EXPECT_NO_THROW(EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_ns_)));
     EXPECT_NO_THROW(EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_ns_a_)));
     EXPECT_NO_THROW(EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_ns_aaaa_)));
     EXPECT_NO_THROW(EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_a_)));
     if ((expected_flags & ZoneFinder::RESULT_NSEC3_SIGNED) != 0) {
         EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_nsec3_));
     }
     if ((expected_flags & ZoneFinder::RESULT_NSEC_SIGNED) != 0) {
         EXPECT_EQ(SUCCESS, zone_finder_.add(rr_nsec_));
     }

     // These two should be successful
     findTest(origin_, RRType::NS(), ZoneFinder::SUCCESS, true, rr_ns_);
     findTest(rr_ns_a_->getName(), RRType::A(), ZoneFinder::SUCCESS, true,
              rr_ns_a_);

     // These domain exist but don't have the provided RRType
     findTest(origin_, RRType::AAAA(), ZoneFinder::NXRRSET, true,
              ConstRRsetPtr(), expected_flags);
     findTest(rr_ns_a_->getName(), RRType::NS(), ZoneFinder::NXRRSET, true,
              ConstRRsetPtr(), expected_flags);

     // These domains don't exist (and one is out of the zone)
     findTest(Name("nothere.example.org"), RRType::A(),
 ZoneFinder::NXDOMAIN,
              true, ConstRRsetPtr(), expected_flags);
     EXPECT_THROW(zone_finder_.find(Name("example.net"), RRType::A()),
                  OutOfZone);
 }
 }}}

 How could the new NSEC4NXRRSET be a replacement of all of this
 function previously tested?

 Anyway, again, since we're running out of this time...maybe could I
 propose a diff to address this point?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1808#comment:16>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development