fix(test): test delete Windows registry accidently

[baka-gourd]

fix #4915

This PR is intended to fix the issue mentioned in the ticket regarding the accidental deletion of existing registry entries. However, while investigating the problem, we also discovered a concurrency issue in RegistryGuard, so the scope of the fix is quite extensive.

• Add per-test Windows registry isolation using a unique test UUID.
• Route Windows registry helpers through test-specific registry subkeys when a UUID is present.
• Update RegistryGuard to support multiple registry values and clean up the per-test registry subtree.
• Forward the registry UUID through the test Config and CliTestContext.
• Update Windows unit and integration tests to use UUID-scoped registry guards.
• Keep PATH registry checks and Programs entry checks isolated in tests.
• Treat missing registry keys or values as non-fatal during registry cleanup.
• No new UUID dependency is introduced; UUIDs are generated from rand.

[Cloud0310]

Another thing here is, can we make code format coming along with commits instead of doing formatting in the end commit here.

[rami3l]

@baka-gourd I think this looks quite interesting but would require more work before it can be merged.

Three general principles of our committing style:

1. Each commit should do one single thing, whether that is refactoring, introducing a breaking change, or adding a new feature.
2. Each commit should ensure that all test cases are passing. If running all tests is not practical in your local environment, you should have run at least all related tests and have made sure that they are passing.
3. When a commit indicates a behavioral change that might cause some tests to fail, you should update those influenced tests in the same commit so that they pass again.

View changes since this review

[baka-gourd]

The CI error isn't my fault; CI pulled the wrong commit😓

[Cloud0310]

Lmao, a re-run seems don't fix up the problem with buggy github actions. 😆

[rami3l]

@baka-gourd I think a rebase would help though.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[rami3l]

LGTM and thank you so much :)

View changes since this review

[baka-gourd]

-let environment = process.registry_environment_key()?;
+let environment = process.registry_key("Environment", CURRENT_USER)?;

I don't think that's a good idea. Even though it only has one function, using inline code will lead to a lot of duplication, which makes it harder to modify later.

[rami3l]

-let environment = process.registry_environment_key()?;

+let environment = process.registry_key("Environment", CURRENT_USER)?;

I don't think that's a good idea. Even though it only has one function, using inline code will lead to a lot of duplication, which makes it harder to modify later.

Sorry there might be some GitHub availability issues going on; I'm okay with both the inlined and the non-inlined versions of this call, as long as it's consistent.

[ChrisDenton]

This approach seems fine to me. There's still the slight risk that, if something goes badly wrong, there will be left over registry entries. But the impact of that is limited and in any case they can be cleaned up on the next test run.

View changes since this review

[rami3l]

This approach seems fine to me. There's still the slight risk that, if something goes badly wrong, there will be left over registry entries.

@ChrisDenton Indeed; but in this regard I'd like to add that this PR is using the volatile option for registry operations during tests for that very reason, so in the worst case the temp keys created here shouldn't survive a system reboot.

[ChrisDenton]

the temp keys created here shouldn't survive a system reboot

Yep, though for some of us that can be a long time 😉