Re: [PATCH v2] credential/libsecret: support password_expiry_utc

>
> "M Hickford via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> We used to use the bog-standard "COMPAT_NETWORK" but now we are
> adding an extra element, and that makes it necessary to define our
> own?  OK.

>
> >  static char *make_label(struct credential *c)
> >  {
> >       if (c->port)
> > @@ -78,6 +93,9 @@ static GHashTable *make_attr_list(struct credential *c)
> >               g_hash_table_insert(al, "port", g_strdup_printf("%hu", c->port));
> >       if (c->path)
> >               g_hash_table_insert(al, "object", g_strdup(c->path));
> > +     if (c->password_expiry_utc)
> > +             g_hash_table_insert(al, "password_expiry_utc",
> > +                     g_strdup(c->password_expiry_utc));
> >
> >       return al;
> >  }
> > @@ -101,9 +119,11 @@ static int keyring_get(struct credential *c)
> >
> >       attributes = make_attr_list(c);
> >       items = secret_service_search_sync(service,
> > -                                        SECRET_SCHEMA_COMPAT_NETWORK,
> > +                                        &schema,
> >                                          attributes,
> > -                                        SECRET_SEARCH_LOAD_SECRETS | SECRET_SEARCH_UNLOCK,
> > +                                        SECRET_SEARCH_LOAD_SECRETS | SECRET_SEARCH_UNLOCK |
> > +                                        // for backwards compatibility
>
> No // comments please.

>
> > +                                        SECRET_SCHEMA_DONT_MATCH_NAME,
>
> SECRET_SCHEMA_DONT_MATCH_NAME does not seem to be listed as one of
> the flags to be used with secret_service_search_sync(),
>
>     https://www.manpagez.com/html/libsecret-1/libsecret-1-0.18.6/SecretService.php#secret-service-search-sync
>
> and the only reference to it I found was as a flag to be placed in
> the schema.
>
>     https://www.manpagez.com/html/libsecret-1/libsecret-1-0.18.6/migrating-schemas.php
>     https://www.manpagez.com/html/libsecret-1/libsecret-1-0.18.6/libsecret-SecretSchema.php
>
> But I'll take your word for it.

>
> I found nothing unexpected or surprising in the rest of the patch to
> this file.  They all looked just a fallout of having to store and
> retrieve one extra item from the database together with many other
> things we already store and retrieve.  Cleanly written.

>
> > diff --git a/t/lib-credential.sh b/t/lib-credential.sh
> > index 5ea8bc9f1dc..9ebf7eeae48 100644
> > --- a/t/lib-credential.sh
> > +++ b/t/lib-credential.sh
> > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ helper_test_clean() {
> >       reject $1 https example.com store-user
> >       reject $1 https example.com user1
> >       reject $1 https example.com user2
> > +     reject $1 https example.com user3
> >       reject $1 http path.tld user
> >       reject $1 https timeout.tld user
> >       reject $1 https sso.tld
> > @@ -298,6 +299,35 @@ helper_test_timeout() {
> >       '
> >  }
> >
> > +helper_test_password_expiry_utc() {
> > +     HELPER=$1
> > +
> > +     test_expect_success "helper ($HELPER) stores password_expiry_utc" '
> > +             check approve $HELPER <<-\EOF
> > +             protocol=https
> > +             host=example.com
> > +             username=user3
> > +             password=pass
> > +             password_expiry_utc=9999999999
> > +             EOF
> > +     '
> >
> > +     test_expect_success "helper ($HELPER) gets password_expiry_utc" '
> > +             check fill $HELPER <<-\EOF
> > +             protocol=https
> > +             host=example.com
> > +             username=user3
> > +             --
> > +             protocol=https
> > +             host=example.com
> > +             username=user3
> > +             password=pass
> > +             password_expiry_utc=9999999999
> > +             --
> > +             EOF
> > +     '
> > +}
> > +
>
> Is any random number usable for this test, or is there some
> constraints (like, "it cannot be too small to be a timestamp in the
> past, because the entry will be expired immediately")?  If there is
> some constraint like that, is it a good idea to also test that
> (like, "make sure an entry with expiry already happened is
> rejected")?