From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F591C433EF for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67ED761029 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232388AbhINTPd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:15:33 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:47354 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232202AbhINTPc (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:15:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 25313 invoked by uid 109); 14 Sep 2021 19:14:14 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:14:14 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 27172 invoked by uid 111); 14 Sep 2021 19:14:14 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:14:14 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:14:13 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Martin =?utf-8?B?w4VncmVu?= Cc: Git Mailing List , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] serve: provide "receive" function for session-id capability Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 09:02:10PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > > I had originally dropped has_capability() in a separate patch, to keep > > this one more readable. That breaks bisectability, but only with > > -Werror. I'm not sure where we should fall on that spectrum (I generally > > bisect with -Wno-error just because warnings may come and go when > > working with different compilers than what was normal at the time). > > > > Not that big a deal either way for this patch, but I wonder if people > > have opinions in general. > > First of all, agreed about the "not that big a deal" part. Just a random > thought: You could do the opposite of what Elijah sometimes does by > first adding a "MAYBE_UNUSED" function, then actually using it. You'd > add "MAYBE_UNUSED" here, then the next commit would drop the whole > thing. It could be worth it if you're removing many many lines so that > the "actual" change gets lost in the noise. But this patch isn't near > any such threshold, IMHO (if there even is such a "threshold"). Yeah, I considered that (because I had seen Elijah do it; I didn't think of it myself). I don't love it, if only because now the extra MAYBE_UNUSED is a head-scratcher for somebody reading the patch. I think it makes sense if the code will exist in that maybe-unused state for a while, but here it's just going away immediately anyway. I dunno. > > +static void session_id_receive(struct repository *r, > > + const char *client_sid) > > +{ > > + if (!client_sid) > > + client_sid = ""; > > + trace2_data_string("transfer", NULL, "client-sid", client_sid); > > +} > > Handling NULL. Nice. :) Otherwise segfault if the client just says "session-id". :) To be clear, the old code behaved the same way. It's just that has_capability() returned the empty string for this case instead of NULL. I changed get_capability() to distinguish the two so that the later fixes for "command=ls-refs=whatever" could treat them differently. I didn't add tests for this case (nor for "object-format" without a value), but we could do that if anybody cares. -Peff