git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fields

From
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date
May 7, 2025, 08:25 UTC
Message-ID
<aBsZBytP6TzMYCxl@pks.im>
In-Reply-To
<20250429145243.992252-3-christian.couder@gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 04:52:42PM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> diff --git a/Documentation/config/promisor.adoc b/Documentation/config/promisor.adoc
> index 2638b01f83..71311b70c8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/config/promisor.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/config/promisor.adoc
> @@ -9,6 +9,24 @@ promisor.advertise::
>  	"false", which means the "promisor-remote" capability is not
>  	advertised.
>  
> +promisor.sendFields::
> +	A comma or space separated list of additional remote related
> +	fields that a server will send while advertising its promisor
> +	remotes using the "promisor-remote" capability, see
> +	linkgit:gitprotocol-v2[5]. Currently, only the
> +	"partialCloneFilter" and "token" fields are supported. The
> +	"partialCloneFilter" field contains the partial clone filter
> +	used for the remote, and the "token" field contains an
> +	authentication token for the remote.
> ++

Should we maybe convert this into a list of accepted fields? Makes it easier to extend going forward.

Furthermore, should we maybe refactor this to match the restrictive design where valid fields are explicitly specified? In other words, should we have separate config keys for each of the accepted fields now?

Also, shouldn't this setting be per promisor remote that we want to advertise? I expect that servers will want to send different partial clone filters for each of the advertised remotes, and they may also want to send different tokens. So it seems a bit too inflexible to only have a single, global "sendFields" configuration that covers all promisors.

Show 23 quoted lines
> diff --git a/Documentation/gitprotocol-v2.adoc b/Documentation/gitprotocol-v2.adoc
> index 5598c93e67..b4648a7ce6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gitprotocol-v2.adoc
> +++ b/Documentation/gitprotocol-v2.adoc
> @@ -785,33 +785,52 @@ retrieving the header from a bundle at the indicated URI, and thus
>  save themselves and the server(s) the request(s) needed to inspect the
>  headers of that bundle or bundles.
>  
> -promisor-remote=<pr-infos>
> +promisor-remote=<pr-info>
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
>  The server may advertise some promisor remotes it is using or knows
>  about to a client which may want to use them as its promisor remotes,
> -instead of this repository. In this case <pr-infos> should be of the
> +instead of this repository. In this case <pr-info> should be of the
>  form:
>  
> -	pr-infos = pr-info | pr-infos ";" pr-info
> +	pr-info = pr-fields | pr-info ";" pr-info
>  
> -	pr-info = "name=" pr-name | "name=" pr-name "," "url=" pr-url
> +	pr-fields = fld-name "=" fld-value | pr-fields "," pr-fields

Tiny nit, but can we maybe spell out "fld" fully? It doesn't buy us that much to abbreviate "field", and it did cause my reading to trip.

Show 19 quoted lines
> -where `pr-name` is the urlencoded name of a promisor remote, and
> -`pr-url` the urlencoded URL of that promisor remote.
> +where all the `fld-name` and `fld-value` in a given `pr-fields` are
> +field names and values related to a single promisor remote.
>  
> -In this case, if the client decides to use one or more promisor
> -remotes the server advertised, it can reply with
> -"promisor-remote=<pr-names>" where <pr-names> should be of the form:
> +The server MUST advertise at least the "name" and "url" field names
> +along with the associated field values, which are the name of a valid
> +remote and its URL, in each `pr-fields`.
>  
> -	pr-names = pr-name | pr-names ";" pr-name
> +The server MAY advertise the following optional fields:
> +
> +- "partialCloneFilter": Filter used for partial clone, corresponding
> +  to the "remote.<name>.partialCloneFilter" config setting.
> +- "token": Authentication token for the remote, corresponding
> +  to the "remote.<name>.token" config setting.

I think we should define semantics of these fields more closely. What exactly is the consequence of a partial clone filter being defined? Does it mean that this promisor remote should only be used in case we do have the exact same filter passed to git-clone(1)? Does it mean that the remote only contains objects that would've been filtered _out_ by such a filter?

Furthermore, we should specify how the token is supposed to be passed to the remote.

> +No other fields are defined by the protocol at this time. Clients SHOULD
> +ignore fields they don't recognize to allow for future protocol extensions.

Shouldn't we require clients to ignore unknown fields? Otherwise, if it's only optional to ignore them, we still can't introduce new fields in the future without breaking existing clients that chose to ignore this guidance.

Show 32 quoted lines
> diff --git a/promisor-remote.c b/promisor-remote.c
> index 24d0e70132..70abec4c24 100644
> --- a/promisor-remote.c
> +++ b/promisor-remote.c
> @@ -314,6 +314,84 @@ static int allow_unsanitized(char ch)
>  	return ch > 32 && ch < 127;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * List of field names allowed to be used in the "promisor-remote"
> + * protocol capability. Each field should correspond to a configurable
> + * property of a remote that can be relevant for the client.
> + */
> +static const char *allowed_fields[] = {
> +	"partialCloneFilter", /* Filter used for partial clone */
> +	"token",              /* Authentication token for the remote */
> +	NULL
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * Check if 'field' is in the list of allowed field names for the
> + * "promisor-remote" protocol capability.
> + */
> +static int is_allowed_field(const char *field)
> +{
> +	const char **p;
> +
> +	for (p = allowed_fields; *p; p++)
> +		if (!strcasecmp(*p, field))
> +			return 1;
> +	return 0;
> +}
Nit: it is a bit funny that we talk about allowed fields here, but
the recommendation is to just ignore unknown fields. So maybe this
should instead be called "known_fields".
Patrick
Previous: Christian CouderNext: Christian Couder
Message 19 of 107 in “Make the "promisor-remote" capability support extra fields”
  1. 0/4 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support extra fieldsChristian Couder, Apr 14, 2025
  2. 1/4 config: move is_config_key_char() to "config.h"Christian Couder, Apr 14, 2025
  3. 2/4 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Apr 14, 2025
  4. Patrick SteinhardtApr 22, 2025
  5. Christian CouderApr 29, 2025
  6. 3/4 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise extra fieldsChristian Couder, Apr 14, 2025
  7. Junio C HamanoApr 14, 2025
  8. Patrick SteinhardtApr 22, 2025
  9. Christian CouderApr 29, 2025
  10. Christian CouderApr 29, 2025
  11. 4/4 promisor-remote: allow a client to check extra fieldsChristian Couder, Apr 14, 2025
  12. 0/3 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, Apr 29, 2025
  13. 1/3 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Apr 29, 2025
  14. Patrick SteinhardtMay 7, 2025
  15. Christian CouderMay 19, 2025
  16. Karthik NayakMay 7, 2025
  17. Christian CouderMay 19, 2025
  18. 2/3 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, Apr 29, 2025
  19. Patrick SteinhardtMay 7, 2025
  20. Christian CouderMay 19, 2025
  21. Patrick SteinhardtMay 27, 2025
  22. Junio C HamanoMay 27, 2025
  23. Christian CouderJun 11, 2025
  24. Karthik NayakMay 7, 2025
  25. Christian CouderMay 19, 2025
  26. 3/3 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, Apr 29, 2025
  27. Patrick SteinhardtMay 7, 2025
  28. Christian CouderMay 19, 2025
  29. Christian CouderMay 2, 2025
  30. 0/5 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, May 19, 2025
  31. 1/5 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, May 19, 2025
  32. Karthik NayakMay 20, 2025
  33. Christian CouderMay 20, 2025
  34. Junio C HamanoMay 20, 2025
  35. Christian CouderMay 21, 2025
  36. Junio C HamanoMay 21, 2025
  37. Christian CouderJun 11, 2025
  38. 2/5 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, May 19, 2025
  39. Justin ToblerMay 21, 2025
  40. Christian CouderJun 11, 2025
  41. Patrick SteinhardtMay 27, 2025
  42. Christian CouderJun 11, 2025
  43. 3/5 promisor-remote: refactor how we parse advertised fieldsChristian Couder, May 19, 2025
  44. 4/5 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, May 19, 2025
  45. 5/5 promisor-remote: use string constants for 'name' and 'url' tooChristian Couder, May 19, 2025
  46. 0/5 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 11, 2025
  47. 1/5 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Jun 11, 2025
  48. Karthik NayakJun 19, 2025
  49. Christian CouderJun 25, 2025
  50. Justin ToblerJun 23, 2025
  51. Christian CouderJun 25, 2025
  52. 2/5 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 11, 2025
  53. Karthik NayakJun 19, 2025
  54. Christian CouderJun 25, 2025
  55. Justin ToblerJun 23, 2025
  56. Christian CouderJun 25, 2025
  57. 3/5 promisor-remote: refactor how we parse advertised fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 11, 2025
  58. 4/5 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 11, 2025
  59. 5/5 promisor-remote: use string constants for 'name' and 'url' tooChristian Couder, Jun 11, 2025
  60. Karthik NayakJun 19, 2025
  61. 0/5 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 25, 2025
  62. 1/5 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Jun 25, 2025
  63. Junio C HamanoJun 25, 2025
  64. Christian CouderJul 21, 2025
  65. 3/5 promisor-remote: refactor how we parse advertised fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 25, 2025
  66. 2/5 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 25, 2025
  67. Junio C HamanoJun 25, 2025
  68. Christian CouderJul 21, 2025
  69. Junio C HamanoJul 21, 2025
  70. Christian CouderJul 31, 2025
  71. Jean-Noël AvilaJun 27, 2025
  72. Christian CouderJul 21, 2025
  73. 4/5 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, Jun 25, 2025
  74. 5/5 promisor-remote: use string constants for 'name' and 'url' tooChristian Couder, Jun 25, 2025
  75. Junio C HamanoJul 7, 2025
  76. Christian CouderJul 8, 2025
  77. 0/5 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 21, 2025
  78. 1/5 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Jul 21, 2025
  79. 2/5 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 21, 2025
  80. 3/5 promisor-remote: refactor how we parse advertised fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 21, 2025
  81. Junio C HamanoJul 21, 2025
  82. Christian CouderJul 31, 2025
  83. 4/5 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 21, 2025
  84. Junio C HamanoJul 21, 2025
  85. Christian CouderJul 31, 2025
  86. 5/5 promisor-remote: use string constants for 'name' and 'url' tooChristian Couder, Jul 21, 2025
  87. Junio C HamanoJul 21, 2025
  88. 0/5 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 31, 2025
  89. 1/5 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Jul 31, 2025
  90. 2/5 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 31, 2025
  91. 3/5 promisor-remote: refactor how we parse advertised fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 31, 2025
  92. Junio C HamanoJul 31, 2025
  93. Christian CouderSep 8, 2025
  94. 4/5 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, Jul 31, 2025
  95. 5/5 promisor-remote: use string constants for 'name' and 'url' tooChristian Couder, Jul 31, 2025
  96. Junio C HamanoJul 31, 2025
  97. Junio C HamanoAug 28, 2025
  98. Christian CouderSep 8, 2025
  99. 0/7 Make the "promisor-remote" capability support more fieldsChristian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  100. 1/7 promisor-remote: refactor to get rid of 'struct strvec'Christian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  101. 2/7 promisor-remote: allow a server to advertise more fieldsChristian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  102. 3/7 promisor-remote: use string constants for 'name' and 'url' tooChristian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  103. 4/7 promisor-remote: refactor how we parse advertised fieldsChristian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  104. 5/7 promisor-remote: use string_list_split() in filter_promisor_remote()Christian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  105. 6/7 promisor-remote: allow a client to check fieldsChristian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  106. 7/7 promisor-remote: use string_list_split() in mark_remotes_as_accepted()Christian Couder, Sep 8, 2025
  107. Junio C HamanoSep 8, 2025

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.