Re: [PATCH 02/10] t7422: fix flaky test caused by buffered stdout

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:47:43AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 09:39:04PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>> > So I don't really see a way to do this robustly.
>> 
>> I think I found a way, which goes back to the inital idea of just
>> generating heaps of submodules.
>> ...
> Your solution looks nice. It's O(1) processes, since all of the heavy
> lifting is done by the long gitmodules file and tree.
>
> I was going to suggest that you could reduce the number of submodules by
> giving them large paths (or large checked-out branch names) to get more
> bytes of output per submodule. But there is not really much point. What
> you have should run quite quickly.

;-)

>> I'm a bit torn though. The required setup is quite complex, and I wonder
>> whether it is really worth it just to test this edge case. On the other
>> hand it is there to cover a recent fix in 082caf527e (submodule status:
>> propagate SIGPIPE, 2024-09-20), so losing the test coverage isn't all
>> that great, either. And keeping the race is not an option to me, either.
>> 
>> So I'm inclined to go with the below version. WDYT?
>
> Yeah, I was tempted after my last email to suggest just ditching the
> test, too. :) But I think what you've written here is a good approach.
> I'll look carefully over what you sent in the v3 series.

Yeah.  Thanks, both.