Re: [PATCH 3/3] archive: allow archive over HTTP(S) with proto v2
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 14, 2018, 05:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20180914055703.GC219147@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20180912053519.31085-4-steadmon@google.com>
Hi,
Josh Steadmon wrote:
> Subject: archive: allow archive over HTTP(S) with proto v2
It's interesting how little this has to touch the client.
Show 6 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> > --- > builtin/archive.c | 8 +++++++- > http-backend.c | 10 +++++++++- > transport-helper.c | 5 +++-- > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
[....]
Show 9 quoted lines
> --- a/builtin/archive.c
> +++ b/builtin/archive.c
> @@ -87,7 +87,13 @@ static int run_remote_archiver(int argc, const char **argv,
> status = packet_reader_read(&reader);
> if (status != PACKET_READ_FLUSH)
> die(_("git archive: expected a flush"));
> - }
> + } else if (version == protocol_v2 &&
> + starts_with(transport->url, "http"))As Stefan noticed, this starts_with test seems a bit too loose. For example, what happens if I try an scp-style SSH URL like http.example.com:path/to/repo, a local path like http/foo/bar, or a custom protocol like httplikebutbetter://path/to/repo (honest question: I haven't tried)?
Show 5 quoted lines
> + /* > + * Commands over HTTP require two requests, so there's an > + * additional server response to parse. > + */ > + discover_version(&reader);
Can this be made consistent with the non-http case? The original capabilities (/info/refs) response told us what protocol version the server wants to use, which means that a hypothetical protocol v3 could use a completely different request format for the followup commands: so could the server omit the protocol version in the v2 /git-upload-archive response? Alternatively, if we want to include the protocol version again, could we do that in stateful protocols as well?
Related question: what should happen if the two responses declare different protocol versions? Should we diagnose that as a protocol error?
[...]
Show 7 quoted lines
> --- a/http-backend.c
> +++ b/http-backend.c
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct rpc_service {
> static struct rpc_service rpc_service[] = {
> { "upload-pack", "uploadpack", 1, 1 },
> { "receive-pack", "receivepack", 0, -1 },
> + { "upload-archive", "uploadarchive", 1, 1 },shell.c orders these in almost-alphabetical order (receive-pack, upload-pack, upload-archive). I guess they should both use actual alphabetical order? (If you agree, then please feel free to do that in a separate patch.)
[...]
Show 6 quoted lines
> @@ -637,6 +638,12 @@ static void service_rpc(struct strbuf *hdr, char *service_name)
> struct rpc_service *svc = select_service(hdr, service_name);
> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>
> + if (!strcmp(service_name, "git-upload-archive")) {
> + /* git-upload-archive doesn't need --stateless-rpc */This comment doesn't seem actionable. Can it say why? E.g. "[...] because an upload-archive command always involves a single round-trip". Or alternatively, I think it's fine to omit the comment.
> + argv[1] = "."; > + argv[2] = NULL; > + }
[...]
Show 7 quoted lines
> @@ -713,7 +720,8 @@ static struct service_cmd {
> {"GET", "/objects/pack/pack-[0-9a-f]{40}\\.idx$", get_idx_file},
>
> {"POST", "/git-upload-pack$", service_rpc},
> - {"POST", "/git-receive-pack$", service_rpc}
> + {"POST", "/git-receive-pack$", service_rpc},
> + {"POST", "/git-upload-archive$", service_rpc},Same comment about services seeming to be in a randomish order.
[...]
Show 6 quoted lines
> --- a/transport-helper.c > +++ b/transport-helper.c > @@ -605,7 +605,8 @@ static int process_connect_service(struct transport *transport, > ret = run_connect(transport, &cmdbuf); > } else if (data->stateless_connect && > (get_protocol_version_config() == protocol_v2) &&
(not about this patch) These parens don't help --- they make it harder for me to read, especially with the new parens to try to match them up with.
> - !strcmp("git-upload-pack", name)) {
> + (!strcmp("git-upload-pack", name) ||
> + !strcmp("git-upload-archive", name))) {A part of me wonders about the wasted cycles comparing to "git-upload-" twice, but (1) it is tiny relative to actually serving the request and (2) if we're lucky, the compiler (or a compiler of the future) inlines the strcmp call and could optimize it out.
[...]
Show 7 quoted lines
> @@ -639,7 +640,7 @@ static int connect_helper(struct transport *transport, const char *name,
>
> /* Get_helper so connect is inited. */
> get_helper(transport);
> - if (!data->connect)
> + if (!data->connect && !data->stateless_connect)
> die(_("operation not supported by protocol"));I don't understand this part. Can you explain it further (possibly by putting it in its own patch)?
Thanks for a pleasant read, Jonathan