patchci(*-leaks): skip the git-svn tests to save time

> However, testing git-svn in the leak-checking jobs provides minimal
> value: git-svn is implemented as a Perl script, and leak checking only
> handles C code. While git-svn does call into Git's built-in commands
> that are implemented in C, these are standard Git operations that are
> already thoroughly exercised elsewhere in the test suite. Therefore,
> running the git-svn tests in the leak-checking jobs only adds to the
> overall run time with little value in return.

> diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh
> index f561884d40..a165c7f268 100755
> --- a/ci/lib.sh
> +++ b/ci/lib.sh
> @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ linux-musl-meson)
>  	;;
>  linux-leaks|linux-reftable-leaks)
>  	export SANITIZE=leak
> +	export NO_SVN_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>  	;;

> From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> 
> I noticed recently that the leak-checking jobs still take a lot of time,
> and upon analysis, the git-svn tests contribute significantly to this.
> 
> Analyzing a recent CI run, I saw that the Git test suite contains
> 1,017 tests, running for approximately 5¼ hours total. Of these, 65
> git-svn-related tests (~6% of test count) took 42.24 minutes combined,
> accounting for ~13.% of the total runtime. This implies that the git-svn
> tests are roughly twice as expernsive compared to the other tests.

> However, testing git-svn in the leak-checking jobs provides minimal
> value: git-svn is implemented as a Perl script, and leak checking only
> handles C code. While git-svn does call into Git's built-in commands
> that are implemented in C, these are standard Git operations that are
> already thoroughly exercised elsewhere in the test suite. Therefore,
> running the git-svn tests in the leak-checking jobs only adds to the
> overall run time with little value in return.
> 
> Given that the leak-checking jobs are particularly time-intensive and
> these 42+ minutes of SVN tests per job provide no additional leak
> detection value, skip them in the *-leaks jobs to reduce CI runtime.
> 
> Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.5
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> ---
>      ci(*-leaks): skip the git-svn tests to save time
>      
>      I leaned heavily on AI to implement this patch, in particular when
>      analyzing the logs. That's why I added that trailer talking about Claude
>      Sonnet. If this is undesirable, please let me know.
> 
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-2031%2Fdscho%2Fskip-svn-and-leak-tests-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-2031/dscho/skip-svn-and-leak-tests-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/2031
> 
>   ci/lib.sh | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh
> index f561884d40..a165c7f268 100755
> --- a/ci/lib.sh
> +++ b/ci/lib.sh
> @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ linux-musl-meson)
>   	;;
>   linux-leaks|linux-reftable-leaks)
>   	export SANITIZE=leak
> +	export NO_SVN_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>   	;;
>   linux-asan-ubsan)
>   	export SANITIZE=address,undefined
> 
> base-commit: 7264e61d87e58b9d0f5e6424c47c11e9657dfb75

> Looking at the CI logs for this PR the p4 and cvs tests account for 
> another 24 minutes of test time and I suspect they also offer little in 
> the way of extra coverage. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of 
> NO_SVN_TESTS to disable them - I wonder if building with NO_PYTHON and 
> NO_PERL would make sense for the leak test job?
>
> Either way I like the direction of this patch
>
> Thanks
>
> Phillip

>>[snip]
> Yup, I generally like this direction, and introducing NO_P4_TESTS
> and NO_CVS_TESTS would not be so bad.  Here is how it looks on top
> of Dscho's patch.
>
> --- >8 ---
> Subject: [PATCH] ci: skip CVS and P4 tests in leaks job, too
>
> Looking at the CI logs, the p4 and cvs tests account for another 24
> minutes of test time and they offer minimal value for quite a
> similar reason as the previous step.
>
> Let's introduce and use a mechanism to skip these tests to save
> some resources.
>
> Suggested-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>

> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, at 19:34, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>[snip]
>> Yup, I generally like this direction, and introducing NO_P4_TESTS
>> and NO_CVS_TESTS would not be so bad.  Here is how it looks on top
>> of Dscho's patch.
>>
>> --- >8 ---
>> Subject: [PATCH] ci: skip CVS and P4 tests in leaks job, too
>>
>> Looking at the CI logs, the p4 and cvs tests account for another 24
>> minutes of test time and they offer minimal value for quite a
>> similar reason as the previous step.
>>
>> Let's introduce and use a mechanism to skip these tests to save
>> some resources.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
>
> Nitpick: Using the commit ident
>
>     Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>
> might be slightly better?

> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026, at 19:34, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>> Yup, I generally like this direction, and introducing NO_P4_TESTS
>>> and NO_CVS_TESTS would not be so bad.  Here is how it looks on top
>>> of Dscho's patch.
>>>
>>> --- >8 ---
>>> Subject: [PATCH] ci: skip CVS and P4 tests in leaks job, too
>>>
>>> Looking at the CI logs, the p4 and cvs tests account for another 24
>>> minutes of test time and they offer minimal value for quite a
>>> similar reason as the previous step.
>>>
>>> Let's introduce and use a mechanism to skip these tests to save
>>> some resources.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
>>
>> Nitpick: Using the commit ident
>>
>>      Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>
>>
>> might be slightly better?
> 
> I didn't even realize there are multiple addresses in play,
> actually.  I just took it from the e-mail header's Cc: field,
> which my MUA copied from From: field of the message I was responding
> to, which was the identity of the person who suggested the change
> after all ;-).

> 
> Yup, I generally like this direction, and introducing NO_P4_TESTS
> and NO_CVS_TESTS would not be so bad.  Here is how it looks on top
> of Dscho's patch.
> 
> --- >8 ---
> Subject: [PATCH] ci: skip CVS and P4 tests in leaks job, too
> 
> Looking at the CI logs, the p4 and cvs tests account for another 24
> minutes of test time and they offer minimal value for quite a
> similar reason as the previous step.
> 
> Let's introduce and use a mechanism to skip these tests to save
> some resources.

> Suggested-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>   ci/lib.sh       | 2 ++
>   t/lib-cvs.sh    | 6 ++++++
>   t/lib-git-p4.sh | 5 +++++
>   3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh
> index a165c7f268..3ecbf147db 100755
> --- a/ci/lib.sh
> +++ b/ci/lib.sh
> @@ -356,7 +356,9 @@ linux-musl-meson)
>   	;;
>   linux-leaks|linux-reftable-leaks)
>   	export SANITIZE=leak
> +	export NO_CVS_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>   	export NO_SVN_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
> +	export NO_P4_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>   	;;
>   linux-asan-ubsan)
>   	export SANITIZE=address,undefined
> diff --git a/t/lib-cvs.sh b/t/lib-cvs.sh
> index 57b9b2db9b..c8b4404888 100644
> --- a/t/lib-cvs.sh
> +++ b/t/lib-cvs.sh
> @@ -2,6 +2,12 @@
>   
>   . ./test-lib.sh
>   
> +if test -n "$NO_CVS_TESTS"
> +then
> +	skip_all='skipping git cvs tests, NO_CVS_TESTS defined'
> +	test_done
> +fi
> +
>   unset CVS_SERVER
>   
>   if ! type cvs >/dev/null 2>&1
> diff --git a/t/lib-git-p4.sh b/t/lib-git-p4.sh
> index 2a5b8738ea..d22e9c684a 100644
> --- a/t/lib-git-p4.sh
> +++ b/t/lib-git-p4.sh
> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ P4D_TIMEOUT=300
>   
>   . ./test-lib.sh
>   
> +if test -n "$NO_P4_TESTS"
> +then
> +	skip_all='skipping git p4 tests, NO_P4_TESTS defined'
> +	test_done
> +fi
>   if ! test_have_prereq PYTHON
>   then
>   	skip_all='skipping git p4 tests; python not available'

> Thanks
>
> Phillip
>
>> Suggested-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> ---
>>   ci/lib.sh       | 2 ++
>>   t/lib-cvs.sh    | 6 ++++++
>>   t/lib-git-p4.sh | 5 +++++
>>   3 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/ci/lib.sh b/ci/lib.sh
>> index a165c7f268..3ecbf147db 100755
>> --- a/ci/lib.sh
>> +++ b/ci/lib.sh
>> @@ -356,7 +356,9 @@ linux-musl-meson)
>>   	;;
>>   linux-leaks|linux-reftable-leaks)
>>   	export SANITIZE=leak
>> +	export NO_CVS_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>>   	export NO_SVN_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>> +	export NO_P4_TESTS=LetsSaveSomeTime
>>   	;;
>>   linux-asan-ubsan)
>>   	export SANITIZE=address,undefined
>> diff --git a/t/lib-cvs.sh b/t/lib-cvs.sh
>> index 57b9b2db9b..c8b4404888 100644
>> --- a/t/lib-cvs.sh
>> +++ b/t/lib-cvs.sh
>> @@ -2,6 +2,12 @@
>>   
>>   . ./test-lib.sh
>>   
>> +if test -n "$NO_CVS_TESTS"
>> +then
>> +	skip_all='skipping git cvs tests, NO_CVS_TESTS defined'
>> +	test_done
>> +fi
>> +
>>   unset CVS_SERVER
>>   
>>   if ! type cvs >/dev/null 2>&1
>> diff --git a/t/lib-git-p4.sh b/t/lib-git-p4.sh
>> index 2a5b8738ea..d22e9c684a 100644
>> --- a/t/lib-git-p4.sh
>> +++ b/t/lib-git-p4.sh
>> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ P4D_TIMEOUT=300
>>   
>>   . ./test-lib.sh
>>   
>> +if test -n "$NO_P4_TESTS"
>> +then
>> +	skip_all='skipping git p4 tests, NO_P4_TESTS defined'
>> +	test_done
>> +fi
>>   if ! test_have_prereq PYTHON
>>   then
>>   	skip_all='skipping git p4 tests; python not available'

> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> The patch looks good to me, it is very convenient that we can put the
>> test in the library files rather than each test file. Should we drop
>> these tests from the ASan job as well?
> 
> That's probably a good idea.
> 
> I also was wondering if we want a blanket NO_FOO_TESTS that we can
> use instead listing all.  That FOO should not be SCM, though, as the
> reason why we exclude the tests is not because they are test about
> foreign SCM.  We exclude them as low value because testing them
> exercises little code of ours that we may make mistakes these checks
> are trying to uncover and that we can fix when they do.
> NO_FOREIGN_CODE_TESTS?  I dunno.

> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> ... If "git svn" was
>> implemented in C then we probably would want to check it for leaks even
>> though it called a foreign program. That's a long winded way of saying I
>> don't have any better suggestions!
> 
> I am not sure if I agree.  If Perl interpreter used to run the Perl
> version of "git svn" were found leaky, are we willing to go in and
> plug leaks there?  Not likely, particularly since it is not what we
> ship and we do not have control over which version of Perl the users
> have on their systems.  So we say "Perl is foreign and we are not
> equipped to plug leaks in various versions of it on users' systems,
> so it is not worth spending cycles to test for leaks in it".
>
> If "git svn" were in C, linked with libsvn without using the perl
> binding, and libsvn were found leaky, the story is the same.  We do
> not control the version of libsvn the users have on their systems,
> we are not equipped to plug leaks in there, so it is not our job to
> spend cycles to test for leaks in it.

> I think that unless the libsvn that linked against was built with 
> -fsanitize=leak we wouldn't find any leaks in it anyway. When I wrote my 
> original mail I was imagining C implementation that forked "svn" but 
> replaced the perl code with C that called the appropriate functions in 
> libgit rather than forking git.