From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Use mongoose to test smart-http unconditionally? Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:49:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20131205024938.GA19376@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20131204222522.GA16706@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 05 03:49:45 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VoP0a-0002wU-I4 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 03:49:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933209Ab3LECtk (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:49:40 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:50650 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756255Ab3LECtk (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:49:40 -0500 Received: (qmail 13944 invoked by uid 102); 5 Dec 2013 02:49:40 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 20:49:40 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:49:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:53:13PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > If it involves making things not tested with apache, I'd actually be > less supportive for the whole plan. I hadn't really considered that angle. Apache is a much more realistic real-world deployment. We give advice for it in git-http-backend(1), and the tests do check that that advice works (OTOH, we also give advice for lighttpd, but that is not checked in the test scripts). > I thought the primary objective was to encourage people who currently > are _not_ running httpd tests by making a lightweight server available > out of the box, robbing an excuse "my box does not have apache > installed" from them. Whether we get rid of apache or not, I think a new lightweight server would fulfill that goal. I just did not want the maintenance burden of managing multiple configs (and our test harness apache config has grown non-trivial). > As long as a server supports bog standard CGI interface, smart-http > should work the same way with any such server. For that reason, it > should be theoretically sufficient to test with one non-apache > server (i.e. mongoose) for the purpose of making sure _our_ end of > the set-up works, but still... There are definitely subtleties between servers. For example, when I worked on fetching bundles over http a while back, there was a big difference between lighttpd and apache. A request for "http://example.com/foo.bundle/info/refs" would return the bundle under lighttpd, but not under apache (for an apache server, we would have to make a fallback request). The client needs to be able to handle both scenarios gracefully. That's a case where it would be nice to be able to test _both_ cases, and that may be an argument for having multiple (or trying to configure apache to do both behaviors). But it shows that there may be subtle differences between a fake test server and a real deployment. So thinking on it more, I'm somewhat less enthusiastic about mongoose. -Peff