fix: negative trace substraction when using SetTimeout

[nicolasbeauvais]

In certain cases when using client or request SetTimeout it is possible that some trace value like dnsDone, tlsHandshakeDone or gotConn are zero, resulting in inaccurate results:

This PR add additional checks in the TraceInfo method to avoid negative values.

I'm not sure how to improve the tests for this, as aborting requests with SetTimeout will not always accurately stop the execution at the exact same point. I'm open to ideas.

[jeevatkm]

@nicolasbeauvais Thanks for the PR. I'm sorry for the delayed response, I was occupied with my personal stuff.

I added a one review comment.

[jeevatkm]

Also, the same issue might exist in the v2 too. I will backport it afterwards, or you can also submit PR v2 if you're interested.

[nicolasbeauvais]

Hey @jeevatkm, no worries, I hope you're doing good!

I've set the default value directly at object initialization, let me know if that's ok for you. I can make a PR on the v2 branch once this one is approved.

[jeevatkm]

@nicolasbeauvais Thanks for updating PR.

[jeevatkm]

@nicolasbeauvais It seems this test case having an issue TestTraceInfoOnTimeoutWithSetTimeout, can you please check it?

[nicolasbeauvais]

@nicolasbeauvais It seems this test case having an issue TestTraceInfoOnTimeoutWithSetTimeout, can you please check it?

@jeevatkm Indeed, it seems the new test uncovered a race condition. I fixed it (at least locally), but please check the changes thoroughly I'm not an experienced Go dev ✌️

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.10345% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 99.79%. Comparing base (66256ef) to head (d710901).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on v3.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
request.go	81.81%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##               v3    #1038      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.82%   99.79%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          18       18              
  Lines        3919     3398     -521     
==========================================
- Hits         3912     3391     -521     
+ Misses          5        4       -1     
- Partials        2        3       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	99.79% <93.10%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jeevatkm]

@nicolasbeauvais Thanks for fixing the test case. It is passed now, only missing coverage on the modified code. Do you mind checking it?

[jeevatkm]

@nicolasbeauvais Thanks for updating the PR.

[jeevatkm]

Still, patch coverage is failing because of missing coverage on the same line as before. I will merge this PR. Can you please look into this coverage part later on?