Re: [PATCH 2/7] bundle-uri: create base key-value pair parsing
- From
Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
- Date
- Aug 23, 2022, 16:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <e5c1d197-fdee-e03d-42e0-a6aff37e595b@github.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqzgfwcf79.fsf@gitster.g>
On 8/22/2022 2:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt >> index e376d547ce0..4280af6992e 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/config.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/config.txt >> @@ -387,6 +387,8 @@ include::config/branch.txt[] >> >> include::config/browser.txt[] >> >> +include::config/bundle.txt[] >> + > > The file that records a list of bundles may borrow the format of git > config files, but will we store their contents in configuration > files in the receiving (or originating) repository? With the > presence of fields like "bundle.version", I somehow doubt it. > > Should "git config --help" list them?
I suppose that at this point, they should be left out, since writing them to your Git config does nothing.
In the future, having these config values present will advertise the bundle list during the 'bundle-uri' protocol v2 command. That could use some clarification in the documentation, too, perhaps with a "bundle.*" item discussing how all of the other items are related to that advertisement.
Show 7 quoted lines
>> +/** >> + * Given a key-value pair, update the state of the given bundle list. >> + * Returns 0 if the key-value pair is understood. Returns 1 if the key >> + * is not understood or the value is malformed. > > Let's stick to the "error is negative" if we do not have a strong > reason not to.
Right. Can do.
Show 31 quoted lines
>> + */
>> +MAYBE_UNUSED
>> +static int bundle_list_update(const char *key, const char *value,
>> + struct bundle_list *list)
>> +{
>> + const char *pkey, *dot;
>> + struct strbuf id = STRBUF_INIT;
>> + struct remote_bundle_info lookup = REMOTE_BUNDLE_INFO_INIT;
>> + struct remote_bundle_info *bundle;
>> +
>> + if (!skip_prefix(key, "bundle.", &pkey))
>> + return 1;
>> + dot = strchr(pkey, '.');
>> + if (!dot) {
>> + if (!strcmp(pkey, "version")) {
>> + int version = atoi(value);
>
> Can atoi() safely fail? Are we happy of pkey that says "1A" and we
> parse it as "1"?
>
>> + if (version != 1)
>> + return 1;
>> +
>> + list->version = version;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>
> Is it OK for a bundle list described in the config-file format to
> have "bundle.version" twice, giving different values? It feels
> counter-intuitive to apply the "last one wins" rule that is usual
> for configuration files....
Show 13 quoted lines
> This explicitly implements "the last one wins". Would it really > make sense for a server to serve a bundle list that says redundant > and wasteful pieces of information, i.e. > > [bundle "1"] > url = one > url = two > > It is not like doing so would allow us to reuse an otherwise mostly > good file by appending new information and that would be a performance > or storage win. So I am not quite sure why we want "the last one wins" > rule here. It instead looks like something we want to sanity check > and complain about.
I could switch this to "expect at most one value" and add warnings for duplicate keys. Should duplicate keys then mean "the bundle list is malformed, abort downloading bundles"? That seems reasonable to me.
Thanks, -Stolee