From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4918337141 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:34:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709224496; cv=none; b=Itx984HcO4v/QD4vDTVRsAFegwPLnrmy8H/GJWBx/Am24gQroPPTVMInJSkQuMT6h+b0AqyBBfQ+khXiXYz0cBXTaOrOPijsBM+oJ9GVeFvqCA82s7kmFkHQLG9e1eU+Fkz3wgV2vJJR6P+URdZW4yYTCrDB1GpJUMcS6rA6LzI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709224496; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Jjqei1FojrHokeSGyBg7QzzKKcVXwjx36GyRpo1K31w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lf/JiHCga1V7NvJcLtrUs33dJ6ogz1wmwL638nejQIGedrAtcz0gEFXwwqtQQrGgMkuif/y+MZaZ3h8wPIk4Y8tn2teacawZ9oIUoWRwRcbjbDuUNV+UZpPlavDKOWbGPSr3lzZ5W9PyWullM8CX9wbVMHo5I1L1eejdppraJJs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=Psi/XHB9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="Psi/XHB9" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A302A34DB1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:34:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Jjqei1FojrHokeSGyBg7QzzKKcVXwjx36GyRpo 1K31w=; b=Psi/XHB9zTgDTp35jkSdGFU1i0Vcucdsk3sr9oXY+6E8Ld+PLg+Y/r ShBGf/eOWHYiE0uh2du34gB7lURr4CvuSvwKbUPii0DnkiStNpBHx+ruiwtDl1mY RJFvyTEqgjQdJ2OoO6vN/0Lo0aJd1sSIEEfqWny9jKmFgEkmx1U58= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C67234DB0; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:34:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.176.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6F2834D5C; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:34:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] upload-pack: only accept packfile-uris if we advertised it In-Reply-To: <20240229054239.GA1669526@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:42:39 -0500") References: <20240228224625.GA1158651@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240228225050.GA1159078@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20240229054239.GA1669526@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:34:48 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 751ED72A-D720-11EE-84BA-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > Sorry, this needs one tweak to pass under the sha256 CI job: > > diff --git a/t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh b/t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh > index 902e42c1c0..1ef540f73d 100755 > --- a/t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh > +++ b/t/t5702-protocol-v2.sh > @@ -781,6 +781,7 @@ test_expect_success 'archive with custom path does not request v2' ' > test_expect_success 'reject client packfile-uris if not advertised' ' > { > packetize command=fetch && > + packetize object-format=$(test_oid algo) && > printf 0001 && > packetize packfile-uris https && > packetize done && > > Otherwise the server complains that the other side did not respect its > advertised object-format (I sure am glad to have included the final > "hey, this input works, right?" test there, as that is what caught it). Ah, good finding. Will use it to amend. I wonder if it is still worth testing if the command is happy with an input that lacks object-format capability under SHA-1 mode. This test piece is primarily about packfile-uris, so in that sense, we are not all that interested in that unspecified client object-format defaults to the initial value of serve.c:client_hash_algo (which is SHA-1), and not testing that here is perfectly fine, I guess. Thanks.