Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] hook: introduce the receive-report hook

> On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 10:20:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 04:51:35PM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> >> Changes in v9:
>> >> - Fix a bug where we were causing a BUG() when no report was requested.
>> >>   It is perfectly valid for clients to skip the report and we shouldn't
>> >>   fail when they do so. Thanks Junio!
>> >
>> > It's curious that nothing has failed because of this. Are we lacking
>> > tests here?
>>
>> The "send-pack" client we have will ask for report if the server
>> side advertises report-status or report-status-v2 capabilities, and
>> there is no way to disable it nor there is no practical need to give
>> a way to do so, so unless we are willing to write a custom client,
>> or a configuration to disable server capability advertisement, such
>> a test is a bit impractical to write.
>
> You can do it with a t/interop test, but we don't have any that push.
> This triggers the BUG() when HEAD is master plus the v8 patches:
>
> diff --git a/t/interop/i5800-push.sh b/t/interop/i5800-push.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000000..b3035b555a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/interop/i5800-push.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +VERSION_A=.
> +VERSION_B=v1.0.0
> +MAKE_OPTS_B="NO_OPENSSL=TooOld"
> +
> +test_description='push to/from older client'
> +. ./interop-lib.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success "create repo to be served by $VERSION_A" '
> +	git.a init --bare dst.git
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success 'create commit in client' '
> +	git.b init-db &&
> +	echo content >file &&
> +	git.b add file &&
> +	git.b commit -m foo
> +'
> +
> +test_expect_success "push with $VERSION_B" '
> +	git.b push --exec="git.a receive-pack" \
> +		dst.git HEAD:refs/heads/foo &&
> +	echo foo >expect &&
> +	git.a -C dst.git log -1 --format=%s foo >actual &&
> +	test_cmp expect actual
> +'
> +
> +test_done
>
>
> Ironically the test succeeds despite the BUG(), because the client isn't
> expecting a status report, so it happily returns while the server side
> dies.
>
> I think the interop suite is probably more trouble than its worth,
> though. Nobody really runs it, and there are all kinds of hidden gotchas
> in trying to build old versions of Git. So this is more of a fun answer
> than a serious suggestion to add to the series.
>
> -Peff