Hi, On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 at 10:14, Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sept 2026 at 07:30, Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Attached is v2 with those changes. Thoughts? > > > > > > > Hi Ayush. > > > > ////////// > > Patch v2-0001 > > ////////// > > > > Patch 0001 looks good to me, but more eyes than mine need to review it. > > Thanks for the review! > > > > > ////////// > > Patch v2-0002 > > ////////// > > > > I confirmed the test fails when patch 0001 is not applied and passes > > when it is applied. > > > > I assume the test code is AI-generated, because it looks way less > > human-readable than a typical TAP test. If the test is ever intended > > to be pushed, then it needs lots of comments to describe what it is > > doing and expecting at each step. > > I do not intend this to be pushed since as I stated upthread its > a niche case that came out of manual review rather than field report. > > I'll post a simplified version in some time for the same, thanks > for looking into it. Attached is v3, with simplified tests and 0001 remains the same. Regards, Ayush
v3-0001-Recheck-table-sync-state-after-refresh.patch
Description: Binary data
v3-0002-Test-table-sync-after-a-concurrent-refresh.patch
Description: Binary data
