Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] t/lib-httpd: make CGI test helpers concurrency-safe
- From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
- Date
- Aug 31, 2026, 07:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <apUqvjWbbZCRUS0n@pks.im>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq1pbkfyb1.fsf@gitster.g>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 12:59:14PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 30 quoted lines
> "Michael Montalbo via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > * Patch 1 fixes apply-one-time-script.sh (the actual flake) and adds t5567, > > which drives the helper directly with no web server so the overlap can be > > forced deterministically. > > * Patch 2 makes http-429.sh atomic. > > * Patch 3 documents the atomic idioms next to where t/lib-httpd.sh installs > > the CGI scripts, so the guidance is in front of anyone adding another > > helper. > > > > Changes since v2: > > > > * Patch 1 now consumes the marker with a plain "rm" (without "-f") instead > > of a rename. "rm" without "-f" already fails once the marker is gone, > > which is the atomicity the helper needs. A new comment explains why the > > helper discards the one-time script's stderr: a losing request can find > > the marker already removed. > > > > * Patch 3 is now specific to the lib-httpd CGI helpers and lives beside > > their install site in t/lib-httpd.sh, rather than as a general section in > > t/README. > > > > * Reworded several helper comments and the patch 1 and 2 log messages for > > clarity and to match the code; no behavior change. > > After giving a cursory review to the previous round, I was hoping > that somebody more clueful than I am about HTTP tests would lend an > eye or two to these patches, but nobody seems interested. > > Any takers?
I think this version is good enough. It's quite a bit puffed up by AI generated messages that are overly long and use lots of meaningless jargon, but I don't think that's worth another reroll.
Patrick