Improve unittests coverage for Suricata's application layers rust nom parsers
Some of the Suricata app-layer parsers require better unittests coverage. For this ticket, the focus are the nom parsers, well-suited for test-driven development, as they can run as standalone units.
If you want to contribute with this ticket, please comment below which unassigned file you want to claim/work with. We'll keep track of available files like so, in this ticket.
The idea is to cover the most important/complex parsers. Some of the files listed already have some coverage but would be benefited if one tested a few more of the key nom parsers (or those which are not laterally tested by being called by other parsers). The files tagged needs tests don't have any unittests at all, as of now.
If you believe any file doesn't require more unit tests, please tell us so, explaining why, so we can mark them as covered.
|nfs::nfs2_records||needs tests||Sam Muhammed|
|nfs::nfs3_records||needs tests||Sam Muhammed|
|nfs::nfs4_records||needs tests||Sam Muhammed|
|sip::parser||some key parsers aren't covered||unassigned|
|smb::smb3||some key parsers aren't covered||unassigned|
|dhcp::parser||maybe a test for parse_all_options||unassigned|
|mqtt::parser||test key parsers||Haleema Khan|
|rfb::parser||needs more tests||Haleema Khan|
Updated by Juliana Fajardini Reichow 3 days ago
- Status changed from New to Rejected
We have this: https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/4864
I shall close this one, then.