Fix flaky server access log test by matching entries instead of exact count

[delthas]

Symptom

testServerAccessLogFile.js flakes with AssertionError: Expected N log entries, got N+1 in file-ft-tests / file-ft-tests-null-compat, on a different operation each run.

Root cause (captured in CI)

The tests asserted an exact access-log entry count per operation and isolated tests by truncating the shared access-log file. Instrumenting the assertion to dump the collected entries caught the extra one red-handed, in two independent failures:

objectDeleteTagging: expected 4, got 5
  [0] CreateBucket        test-server-access-log-bucket
  [1] PutObject           test-server-access-log-bucket/test-object-key
  [2] GetObject           buckettestgetobject/someObject   <-- FOREIGN (unique req_id, http 200)
  [3] PutObjectTagging    test-server-access-log-bucket/test-object-key
  [4] DeleteObjectTagging test-server-access-log-bucket/test-object-key

The extra entry is a GetObject on buckettestgetobject — a bucket owned by test/object/get.js, a different suite. It has a unique req_id (so it is not an SDK-retry duplicate, contrary to the ticket's original hypothesis) and a foreign bucket/key.

Access-log lines are written on the server's res.on('close'), which under HTTP keep-alive can fire long after the response (on socket teardown). A request from another suite can therefore have its line written during a serverAccessLogs test, landing inside the truncate window. This is outside the test's control, so no count-based barrier in the test can fix it.

Fix

Stop asserting an exact count. Match each expected entry against the collected entries by its fields (the same field semantics as validateLogEntry) and ignore anything else. Unordered groups are flattened and matched independently, so interleaved foreign entries are tolerated regardless of when they arrive.

The first commit is an isolated prettier pass on the file (it predated prettier adoption); the second is the functional change.

Issue: CLDSRV-923

[bert-e]

Hello delthas,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

• the author

• 2 peers

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.47%. Comparing base (4887db7) to head (9bb875d).
⚠️ Report is 11 commits behind head on development/9.4.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           development/9.4    #6211   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            85.47%   85.47%           
================================================
  Files                  210      210           
  Lines                14249    14249           
================================================
  Hits                 12180    12180           
  Misses                2069     2069           

Flag	Coverage Δ
kmip-ft-tests	27.90% <ø> (ø)
multiple-backend	36.01% <ø> (ø)
sur-tests	35.81% <ø> (ø)
sur-tests-inflights	37.70% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
unit	72.65% <ø> (ø)
utapi-v2-tests	35.16% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[tcarmet]

Thanks for having a look at it, much appreciated.