tests: minor patchbay test improvements

[Frando]

Description

• Collect nextest output in the downloadable dump together with the testdir for easier debugging
• Remove stale "currently ignored" comments
• Add explicit connection closing to all tests
• Increase timeouts for degrade tests
• Fix formatting by reducing info! line length in async blocks so that rustfmt doesn't silently ignore the block

[github-actions]

Documentation for this PR has been generated and is available at: https://n0-computer.github.io/iroh/pr/4091/docs/iroh/

Last updated: 2026-04-09T20:15:51Z

[github-actions]

Netsim report & logs for this PR have been generated and is available at: LOGS
This report will remain available for 3 days.

Last updated for commit: f475a6e

[matheus23]

I don't understand where we call Endpoint::close in this version.

We should be calling Endpoint::close to ensure we actually properly send the close frame.

With the current version this kinda works out because you can "wait" for the conn.closed().await on the other side "out-of-band" via the barrier as the communication mechanism.

But we don't need the barrier at all, if we just endpoint.close().await on both sides of Pair::run.
You seem to intentionally avoid doing this, what's the reasoning for that?

[Frando]

I don't understand where we call Endpoint::close in this version.

We don't. We also don't on main. I removed it after a suggestion from @flub that we don't need it, because we are not testing for closing behavior but for holepunching here. Removing the endpoint close makes the tests run faster, too.

All tests await connection.closed() on one side before the run function returns, and the barrier makes sure no endpoint is dropped before both run functions are complete. Afterwards, the test is considered complete, and both endpoints are dropped dead on the floor.

I can change it back to calling endpoint.close() but I think I agree with flub that it is cleaner and faster not to await this if the tests are not about testing shutdown behavior.

[matheus23]

We don't. We also don't on main. I removed it after a suggestion from @flub that we don't need it, because we are not testing for closing behavior but for holepunching here. Removing the endpoint close makes the tests run faster, too.

I see. I intentionally added it back, thinking "we don't close properly, so obviously this will take longer than necessary". The idea being here that if we don't close properly, we might not even send the close message, leaving the other side hanging.

Can you add a comment next the barrier use, essentially explaining that we use this as an alternative mechanism to Endpoint::close, so we avoid having to wait for the draining period (which can get quite long in tests with lots of loss & delay).
Otherwise I'll just look at this in a month and think "we should actually call Endpoint::close!".

[flub]

FWIW I'd love those patchbay close tests on noq ;)