Dridi Boukelmoune

Rebased against current master: - flags are now cleared consistently and asserted - test coverage added in 706844a18395eb9d8fdbab0eee018a157a17062b

In `varnish.m4`, the reason why some macros are not called directly but through `AC_REQUIRE` instead is to avoid multiple evaluations. For example, a source tree like varnish-modules with multiple VMODs...

Taking the example you link to, we would from this: ```vcl import urlplus; sub vcl_backend_fetch { if (urlplus.get_extension() == "zip") { set bereq.last_byte_timeout = 4s; } } ``` to this:...

Rebased against current master to solve conflicts with #3812.

To me this belongs in an overarching standards compliance discussion. See also #3016 that refines 5xx statuses for VBE and uses 500 for `VRT_fail()`/`return (fail)`, but will require a VCL...

Maybe we could have compliance "profiles", and for example one opaque (503 everything) and one faithful (best effort compliance).

How about "fold" instead of merge or ~purge~prune?

bugwash: ok

I will happily wait for feedback from @slimhazard before merging, just in case we find something wrong with the change.

> ``` > + VSLb(req->vsl, SLT_Begin, "req %u esi %u", VXID(preq->vsl->wid), > + req->esi_level); > + VSLb(preq->vsl, SLT_Link, "req %u esi %u", VXID(req->vsl->wid), > + req->esi_level); > ``` I think...