Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] credential: handle `credential.<partial-URL>.<key>` again

["Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón" <carenas@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 02:16:45AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:43:17PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > diff --git a/credential.c b/credential.c
> > > index 52965a5122c..3505f6356d8 100644
> > > --- a/credential.c
> > > +++ b/credential.c
> > > @@ -53,7 +53,13 @@ static int credential_config_callback(const char *var, const char *value,
> > >  		char *url = xmemdupz(key, dot - key);
> > >  		int matched;
> > >
> > > -		credential_from_url(&want, url);
> > > +		if (credential_from_url_gently(&want, url, 1, 0) < 0) {
> >
> > definitely not worth a reroll, but just wondering if would make sense to call
> > credential_from_url_gently(!quiet) here, just for consistency?
> 
> We don't have any `quiet` variable here.

my bad, should had been more explicit as it is confusing with all those
booleans at the end without a flags parameter.

I mean the call should be instead :

  if (credential_from_url_gently(&want, url, 1, 1) < 0) {

since we want to warn if the configuration is not supported just like is
done after this check.

> 
> > other than that this series is looking great, under the assumption that there
> > is going to be some more followup with non essential changes.
> 
> I am sure I don't follow. What non-essential changes are you assuming will
> follow up?

the ones that were discussed with Jonathan in a differen thread :

* using a flags parameter instead of two ints
* whatever will be needed so it also works in master and maint

> > will chip in with an test helper for that series so we can hopefully keep our
> > sanity next time someone touches that function again.
> 
> Are the tests I added to t0300 not enough? Or do you think it will need a
> native test helper that is included in `t/helper/test-tool` and exercised
> in the test suite somehow?

I think they are enough, it is only that is easier to quickly iterate with
possible bad input with a helper. which is what I was offering for the next
thread since its need is orthogonal to what you are trying to accomplish.

Carlo