[matheusa1]

Resolves: part of #8117

📝 Summary

When another process holds the generated-CRL lock, CrlService threw a plain \RuntimeException("CRL %s is already in progress ..."). Both the tests and production code identified that case by its message: CrlRevocationChecker used str_contains($e->getMessage(), 'already in progress') to downgrade it to a debug log.

This PR follows the convention agreed in #8117 (prefer typed exceptions, new public exceptions extend LibresignException):

• Adds OCA\Libresign\Exception\CrlGenerationInProgressException (extends LibresignException).
• CrlService throws it instead of \RuntimeException, keeping the same message, so logs are unchanged.
• CrlRevocationChecker uses instanceof CrlGenerationInProgressException instead of matching the message.
• CrlServiceTest asserts the exception class instead of expectExceptionMessage().
• CrlRevocationCheckerTest throws the typed exception, plus a new negative test: an untyped \RuntimeException whose message mentions "already in progress" is now logged as a warning, not treated as a held lock.

All callers of generateCrlDer()/refreshGeneratedCrlDer() catch \Exception/\Throwable, so moving away from \RuntimeException does not change their behavior.

🧪 How to test

composer test:unit -- --filter 'CrlServiceTest|CrlRevocationCheckerTest'

Validation evidence

• Focused regression/acceptance test: the new negative test and the updated CrlServiceTest cases failed before the change and pass after it.
• Relevant lint/type/static-analysis checks: php-cs-fixer --dry-run clean on the changed files, php -l OK. Psalm was not run locally (local PHP 8.3.6, Psalm requires >= 8.3.16), so it is left to CI.
• Broader suite required by the changed surface: --filter Crl ran 243 tests and all pass except Command\Crl\CleanupTest::testRejectsInvalidPeriodFormat ("negative-period"), which fails the same way on main without this change.
• CI reviewed

⚙️ API / Back-end changes

• Internal exception type for the "CRL generation/refresh already in progress" case. No API, route, or response shape changes.
• Unit tests added or updated

✅ Checklist

• I have read and followed the contribution guide.
• The diff does not contain unrelated refactors or generated changes.
• Commits follow Conventional Commits where applicable.
• All commits include the required DCO sign-off.

🤖 AI (if applicable)

• The content of this PR was partially or fully generated using AI

[welcome]

Thanks for opening your first pull request in this repository! ✌️

[YvesCesar]

@matheusa1

Thanks for your contribution!

Can you check this review?

[YvesCesar]

Many thanks, @matheusa1 !

@vitormattos looks okay to me.
I don't think the errors in the pipelines are related to the PR.

[github-actions]

Hi @matheusa1, your first pull request to LibreSign has been merged. 🎉

Your work is part of LibreSign now, and everyone who signs a document with it benefits from the time and knowledge you shared. Thank you.

You are very welcome to contribute again. The good first issue list is a good place to look next, and you no longer have to wonder how the process works.

If you have a few minutes and feel like it, we would love to hear how this went for you: https://ls.librecode.coop/index.php/645932?lang=en&source=github-first-merged-pr&repository=libresign. It is entirely optional; nothing is expected of you in return for contributing.

Come say hello in the LibreSign community: https://t.me/LibreSign