Le 26/03/2020 à 09:24, Kiran Gavali a écrit :
Thank you Christopher and Willy for your responses !

We have discussed the resolution for the issue on GitHub at following link: 
However to further explain the patch fix, we have introduced new options, "header" and 
"body" in http-check directive. Based on the content for these options configured in haproxy.cfg 
and if expect option is also configured for http-check, the header is added to a buffer followed by the 
"Connection: close" string which is further followed by the body.
For cases, when either header or body or both is not configured in haproxy.cfg, 
we have used default values to create the data packet in the buffer.
We would definitely update the documentation once the patch is finalized and 
therefore shared it with RFC tag.
Ah, ok. I understand now. I missed the RFC tag in the email subject, sorry :)

To answer your  query on reg-test, We have performed regression testing of the 
patch using the RT suite available at our end. We can share with you the test 
report, if required. However, if there is any community RT suite that you would 
like us to follow, please do let me know.

About the regression tests, we use varnishtest (https://github.com/vtest/VTest). All our tests are placed in the "reg-tests" subdirectory. Here is a documentation to write VTC tests: https://varnish-cache.org/docs/trunk/reference/vtc.html.

To run tests, you may use the script "scripts/run-regtests.sh" or the "make reg-tests" command.

As far as the relevance of this patch is concerned, considering the planned 
http-check refactoring at your end, we were already aware that the patch might 
not be merged due to the  fact that the check system is currently being 
reworked to support muxes for HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 so that there are better checks 
in 2.2

As Willy said, have a solution for current versions is also important. But the syntax must be compatible with the next one. This part must be discussed first.

Christopher Faulet

Reply via email to