Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] vreportf: Fix interleaving issues, remove 4096 limitation

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 26, 2019, 21:36 UTC
Message-ID: <20191026213648.GA7331@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1910262040360.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 10:56:45PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Back to the issue at hand: I did open a GitGitGadget PR with my proposed
> change, in the hopes that I could somehow fast-track this fix into the
> CI/PR builds over at https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git, but there are
> problems: it seems that now there is an at least occasional broken pipe
> in the same test when run on macOS.

Yes, I think that's another issue in the same test. There's more discussion further down in the thread I linked earlier, starting here:

  https://public-inbox.org/git/20190829143805.GB1746@sigill.intra.peff.net/

and I think Gábor's solution here:

  https://public-inbox.org/git/20190830121005.GI8571@szeder.dev/

is the right direction (and note that this _isn't_ just a test artifact, but a bug that occasionally hits real-world cases, too).

Show 15 quoted lines

> There _also_ seems to be something spooky going on in t3510.12 and .13,
> where the expected output differs from the actual output only by a
> re-ordering of the lines:
> 
> -- snip --
> [...]
> +++ diff -u expect advice
> --- expect	2019-10-25 22:17:44.982884700 +0000
> +++ advice	2019-10-25 22:17:45.278884500 +0000
> @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
>  error: cherry-pick is already in progress
> -hint: try "git cherry-pick (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)"
>  fatal: cherry-pick failed
> +hint: try "git cherry-pick (--continue | --skip | --abort | --quit)"
> -- snap --

Hrm. I'd have thought those are both coming from the same process. Which implies that we're not fflushing stderr before calling write(2). But your patch seems to do so...

<scratches head> Aha. I think you force-pushed up as I am typing this. :) So I think that is indeed the solution.

Show 6 quoted lines

> So much as I would love to see the flakiness of t5516 be fixed as soon
> as possible, I fear we will have to look at the underlying issue a bit
> closer: there are two processes writing to `stderr` concurrently. I
> don't know whether there would be a good way for the `stderr` of the
> `upload-pack` process to be consumed by the `fetch` process, and to be
> printed by the latter.

The worst part is that this message already _is_ consumed by fetch: we send it twice, once over the sideband, and once directly to stderr. In most cases the stderr version is lost, but some server providers might be collecting it. I wouldn't mind seeing the direct-to-stderr one dropped. There's some more discussion in (from the same thread linked earlier):

  https://public-inbox.org/git/20190828145412.GB14432@sigill.intra.peff.net/

-Peff