Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] t5551: be less strict about the number of credential warnings

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: "Taylor Blau" <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Derrick Stolee" <derrickstolee@github.com>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] t5551: be less strict about the number of credential warnings
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2022 04:49:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cSj78Mh8v6mN3BtyHJ+NxOvT2H_NW6SPFSAce0op2DfjA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y2ItZWx+kBmTreGQ@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 4:46 AM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> Subject: t5551: be less strict about the number of credential warnings
>
> 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.
>
> This causes the tests to fail, because they assert that in a few cases
> we should print the warning 2 or even 3 times. The reason for that is
> given in 6dcbdc0d66 (remote: create fetch.credentialsInUrl config,
> 2022-06-06), which is that multiple processes are involved, and each
> warns.
>
> In an ideal world, the user would just see the message once per logical
> operation; they don't care how many underlying processes are involved.
> And we may fix that eventually. But in the meantime, let's loosen the
> tests to just assert that the user sees the message _at least_ once.
>
> This won't catch a case where we accidentally start producing it 500
> times, but that's not a likely regression. A more likely thing is that
> we'd start producing it four times because the underlying code changes
> to use a new process. But that's exactly the kind of thing we'd prefer
> to be ignoring in the tests.
>
> Note that the tests for the "die" mode don't need adjusted. They die

s/adjusted/adjustment --or -- s/need/& to be/

> immediately in the first process that sees the problem, so they
> consistently show the error once. It's only the "warn" mode which must
> be loose. If we eventually fix it, then we can tighten its assertion. In
> the meantime, this works around the CI issues.
>
> Based on a patch by Johannes Schindelin.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>