On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 06:03:55PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 05:53:47PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > (...) > > > > If I don't manage to get them to work, I propose you to merge everything > > > > but tag the VTC as "broken" (we already have a few such) so that they > > > > don't run by default. It's too bad to delay the inclusion of a feature > > > > just because we're unable to express it in vtc :-( > > > > > > That is fine by me as well. Thank you for taking a detailed look at these > > > tests! > > > > OK I'll try with your last update. If it continues to fail here, I'll > > just do that. Thanks for making the effort of writing a vtc, it's very > > much appreciated, even if in this case we're playing with the limits, I > > hope next time it will go smoother ;-) > > So it worked out of the box, so I've now merged it! I've just applied > two tiny last-minute edits: > - wrap the doc at 80 cols (tools that process it expect consistent > line length, and it's always better when you read it in a default > term and search for something to have complete lines) > > - wrap the commit message to 72 (there's nothing strict but when we > backport and git starts to wrap long lines in commit messages in > the output format we're using to review patches, it's sometimes > a pain) > > Thanks again for this nice and very clean work!
Finally it failed on the CI on all but one instance :-) https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/actions/runs/14065686272/job/39387465537 It's only balance-hash-maxqueue that fails, not the other one. So I'll mark it as "broken" with a comment saying that it tends to work locally but not on the CI. This way we keep the principle needed to test it and can even run it locally without polluting the centralized tests. Cheers, Willy
