Re: [PATCH 2/2] t5516/t5601: be less strict about the number of credential warnings

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:42:59AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:54:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> >
> > > It is unclear as to _why_, but under certain circumstances the warning
> > > about credentials being passed as part of the URL seems to be swallowed
> > > by the `git remote-https` helper in the Windows jobs of Git's CI builds.
> > >
> > > Since it is not actually important how many times Git prints the
> > > warning/error message, as long as it prints it at least once, ...
> >
> > Sorry, but I do not quite see the value of keeping the test to
> > expect success in a weakend form.  If we think we are emitting three
> > warnings, whether we do so by mistake or by design, and some of them
> > are lost and not shown for an unknown reason, is there a guarantee
> > that at least one would survive?  And when all three are lost, even
> > the test in the weakened form would fail and stop the CI builds, no?
>
> Without understanding the cause of the loss, I agree that things are a
> little hand-wavy. But the assumption _does_ seem to hold that we
> consistently produce at least one (presumably from the parent
> clone/fetch/push process). And if we can rely on that, there's value in
> the tests asserting that the message was shown to the user at least
> once.

Part of me wonders whether the local DNS-resolution issue you fixed in
the first patch would be sufficient to get us to produce the wrong
number of warnings consistently.

I.e., if I queue just the first patch and drop Johannes's, would that be
sufficient to get CI working consistently again?

I don't know. It's frustrating to rely so much on an external
environment that our feedback loop can only be as short as "push out
some combination of these patches and wait for CI". That's
disappointing, and TBH I would rather spend time focusing on other
patches than play games with CI.

The pair of patches look good to me. Perhaps we could avoid the weakened
assumption, but I do not mind too much in the meantime. Especially since
we already have a series[1] in the works that resolves the issue for
good.

Thanks,
Taylor

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/RFC-patch-1.1-0266485bc6c-20221031T204149Z-avarab@gmail.com/