Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] credential: handle `credential.<partial-URL>.<key>` again
- From
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 24, 2020, 00:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200424003926.GC20669@Carlos-MBP>
- In-Reply-To
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2004240215100.18039@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 02:16:45AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> 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.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > > 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
Show 6 quoted lines
> > 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