Re: [PATCH v2] sub-process: print the cmd when a capability is unsupported
- From
Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 11, 2017, 12:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <29df9cf1-c75e-9d0f-7163-aee4ebec4527@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqlgll5300.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On 9/10/2017 11:27 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 35 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes: > >> I still think we would want to turn warning() to die(), but it >> probably is better to do so in a separate follow-up patch. That >> will give us a good place to record the reason why the current "just >> call a warning() and pretend as if nothing bad happend" is wrong. > > And here is such an update. It seems that pretty much all comments > in the original thread were "warning is wrong--we should die here", > but nobody seems to have bothered following it through. > > cf. <20170815111725.5d009b66@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] subprocess: loudly die when subprocess asks for an unsupported capability > > The handshake_capabilities() function first advertises the set of > capabilities it supports, so that the other side can pick and choose > which ones to use and ask us to enable in its response. Then we > read the response that tells us what choice the other side made. If > we saw something that we never advertised, that indicates one of two > things. The other side, i.e. the "upgraded" filter, is not paying > attention of the capabilities advertisement, and asking something > its correct operation relies on, but we are not capable of giving > that unknown feature and operate without it, so after that point the > exchange of data is a garbage-in-garbage-out. Or the other side > wanted to ask for one of the capabilities we advertised, but the > code has typo and their wish to enable a capability that its correct > operation relies on is not understood on this end. The result is > the same garbage-in-garbage-out. > > Instead of sweeping such a potential bug under the rug, die loudly > when we see a request for an unsupported capability in order to > force sloppily-written filter scripts to get corrected. >
The documentation states "Git expects to read a list of desired capabilities, ***which must be a subset of the supported capabilities list*** and a flush packet as response:"
Anything else is clearly a bug so a "die" is more appropriate than a warning.
Patch looks good. Thanks for making sure this didn't fall through the cracks.
Show 21 quoted lines
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
> sub-process.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sub-process.c b/sub-process.c
> index fcc4832c14..ec9a51b7b1 100644
> --- a/sub-process.c
> +++ b/sub-process.c
> @@ -181,8 +181,8 @@ static int handshake_capabilities(struct child_process *process,
> if (supported_capabilities)
> *supported_capabilities |= capabilities[i].flag;
> } else {
> - warning("subprocess '%s' requested unsupported capability '%s'",
> - process->argv[0], p);
> + die("subprocess '%s' requested unsupported capability '%s'",
> + process->argv[0], p);
> }
> }
>
>