Re: [PATCH v2] credential: new attribute password_expiry_utc

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2023, 17:12 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8rhh2tum.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Y9pWxHfgPtgCKO+B@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

>> diff --git a/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c b/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c
>> index f3c89831d4a..338058be7f9 100644
>> --- a/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c
>> +++ b/builtin/credential-cache--daemon.c
>> @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ static void serve_one_client(FILE *in, FILE *out)
>>  		if (e) {
>>  			fprintf(out, "username=%s\n", e->item.username);
>>  			fprintf(out, "password=%s\n", e->item.password);
>> +			if (e->item.password_expiry_utc != TIME_MAX)
>> +				fprintf(out, "password_expiry_utc=%"PRItime"\n",
>> +					e->item.password_expiry_utc);
>>  		}
>
> Is there a particular reason to use TIME_MAX as the sentinel value here,
> and not just "0"? It's not that big a deal either way, but it's more
> usual in our code base to use "0" if there's no reason not to (and it
> seems like nothing should be expiring in 1970 these days).

This is my fault ;-). Here, there is no difference between 0 and TIME_MAX, but elsewhere the code needed

	if (expiry != 0 && expiry < time(NULL))

to see if the entry has expired. If the sentinel for an entry that will never expire were TIME_MAX, you do not need the first half of the expression.

I am OK either way.