Re: Observing low test-suite coverage

ср, 2 февр. 2022 г. в 21:54, Hugo Lefeuvre : > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:25:39PM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote: > > can you share details how did you invoked "gcov" ? > > I tried to make it work recently chipitsine/haproxy | Coveralls - Test > > Coverage History & Statistics > >

Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] get BoringSSL back to the game

ср, 2 февр. 2022 г. в 21:51, Frederic Lecaille : > On 1/31/22 6:22 AM, Илья Шипицин wrote: > > Hello, > > > > 0001 .. 0003 are "pre QUIC" patches > > 0004 .. 0006 are most questionable QUIC part > > 0007 is very simple > > > > > > we can discuss whether BoringSSL should be > > 1) dr

Re: Observing low test-suite coverage

Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:25:39PM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote: > can you share details how did you invoked "gcov" ? > I tried to make it work recently chipitsine/haproxy | Coveralls - Test > Coverage History & Statistics > , but it needs more > a

Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] get BoringSSL back to the game

On 1/31/22 6:22 AM, Илья Шипицин wrote: > Hello, > > 0001 ..  0003 are "pre QUIC" patches > 0004 ..  0006 are most questionable QUIC part > 0007  is very simple > > > we can discuss whether BoringSSL should be > 1) dropped completely > 2) supported, but no QUIC > 3) supported for QUI

Re: Observing low test-suite coverage

Hi Willy, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:47:58AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Just to be sure, what test suite are you talking about ? I guess you mean > the regression tests in the "reg-tests" directory, but I'm not sure. If so, > we're well aware that they are still fairly limited, and were introdu

Re: [PATCH] get BoringSSL back to the game

Ilya, Adding Fred to the thread, so he can gives his opinion about the QUIC part. On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:22:01AM +0500, Илья Шипицин wrote: > 0001 .. 0003 are "pre QUIC" patches > 0007 is very simple Regarding the first patches: > Subject: [PATCH 3/7] REGTESTS: skip show_ssl_

Re: DOC issue with http-request return

On Feb 2, 2022, at 3:42 AM, Christopher Faulet wrote: > > Le 2/1/22 à 18:31, Jay Wren (jawren) a écrit : >> I think I've found an error in the docs. The entry for `http-request return` >> shows the last component as [ {if | unless} ] but if I leave >> that off in a backend I get [ALERT] parsin

Re: DOC issue with http-request return

Le 2/1/22 à 18:31, Jay Wren (jawren) a écrit : I think I've found an error in the docs. The entry for `http-request return` shows the last component as [ {if | unless} ] but if I leave that off in a backend I get [ALERT] parsing... 'http-request return' expects either 'if' or 'unless' followe