REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RELEASES:
To request your PR to be included in production software, please add the corresponding labels called "async-" to your PR. Add the labels directly (if you have the permissions) or add a comment of the form (note that labels are separated by a ",")

+async-label <label1>, <label2>, !<label3> ...

This will add <label1> and <label2> and removes <label3>.

The following labels are available
async-2023-pbpb-apass3
async-2023-pbpb-apass4
async-2022-pp-apass6-2023-PbPb-apass2
async-2022-pp-apass4
async-2022-pp-apass4-accepted
async-2022-pp-apass6-2023-PbPb-apass2-accepted
async-2023-pbpb-apass3-accepted
async-2023-pbpb-apass4-accepted

Hi @ktf
thanks, this looks very good and if I run the FST with it the leak rate is strongly reduced. It seems the build checks are failing though, could you check please?

/sw/SOURCES/O2/13061-slc7_x86-64/0/CCDB/test/testCcdbApiDownloader.cxx(173): �[1;31;49merror: in "asynch_schedule_test": check httpCode == 200 has failed�[0;39;49m

I frankly think the test is wrong, but indeed it needs understanding. @costing could you cc Michal? I do not recall his handle.

Also the rest of the leak comes from the HTTPHEADER slist, however the way the code is currenlty structured, it's not easy to clean it up correctly.

Adding @TrifleMichael

Updated with the fix for the remaining leak. I think the delete in the test should not be there, but someone should probably doublecheck the logic. With this, my reproducer does not show any leak whatsoever.

I think it's some glitch on the github side, actually. The code formats fine locally.