Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] credential: handle `credential.<partial-URL>.<key>` again

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 02:16:45AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:43:17PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/credential.c b/credential.c
> > > > index 52965a5122c..3505f6356d8 100644
> > > > --- a/credential.c
> > > > +++ b/credential.c
> > > > @@ -53,7 +53,13 @@ static int credential_config_callback(const char *var, const char *value,
> > > >  		char *url = xmemdupz(key, dot - key);
> > > >  		int matched;
> > > >
> > > > -		credential_from_url(&want, url);
> > > > +		if (credential_from_url_gently(&want, url, 1, 0) < 0) {
> > >
> > > definitely not worth a reroll, but just wondering if would make sense to call
> > > credential_from_url_gently(!quiet) here, just for consistency?
> >
> > We don't have any `quiet` variable here.
>
> my bad, should had been more explicit as it is confusing with all those
> booleans at the end without a flags parameter.
>
> I mean the call should be instead :
>
>   if (credential_from_url_gently(&want, url, 1, 1) < 0) {
>
> since we want to warn if the configuration is not supported just like is
> done after this check.

> > > other than that this series is looking great, under the assumption that there
> > > is going to be some more followup with non essential changes.
> >
> > I am sure I don't follow. What non-essential changes are you assuming will
> > follow up?
>
> the ones that were discussed with Jonathan in a differen thread :
>
> * using a flags parameter instead of two ints
> * whatever will be needed so it also works in master and maint

> > > will chip in with an test helper for that series so we can hopefully keep our
> > > sanity next time someone touches that function again.
> >
> > Are the tests I added to t0300 not enough? Or do you think it will need a
> > native test helper that is included in `t/helper/test-tool` and exercised
> > in the test suite somehow?
>
> I think they are enough, it is only that is easier to quickly iterate with
> possible bad input with a helper. which is what I was offering for the next
> thread since its need is orthogonal to what you are trying to accomplish.