On 06/26, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> writes:
>
> > + wanted-refs section
> > + * This section is only included if the client has requested a
> > + ref using a 'want-ref' line and if a packfile section is also
> > + included in the response.
> > +
> > + * Always begins with the section header "wanted-refs".
> > +
> > + * The server will send a ref listing ("<oid> <refname>") for
> > + each reference requested using 'want-ref' lines.
> > +
> > + * The server SHOULD NOT send any refs which were not requested
> > + using 'want-ref' lines and a client MUST ignore refs which
> > + weren't requested.
>
> Just being curious, but the above feels the other way around. Why
> are we being more lenient to writers of broken server than writers
> of broken clients? The number of installations they need to take
> back and replace is certainly lower for the former, which means
> that, if exchanges of unsoliclited refs are unwanted, clients should
> notice and barf (or warn) if the server misbehaves, and the server
> should be forbidden from sending unsolicited refs, no?
Ok so should I change the server part to "MUST NOT" and the client part
to "SHOULD"? And I can add code to die when we see refs that weren't
requested, but i feel like if we add an ability to request a pattern in
the future this will completely change, which is why I currently have a
client just ignoring anything else.
>
>
> > diff --git a/t/t5703-upload-pack-ref-in-want.sh
> > b/t/t5703-upload-pack-ref-in-want.sh
> > new file mode 100755
> > index 000000000..0ef182970
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/t/t5703-upload-pack-ref-in-want.sh
> > @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +
> > +test_description='upload-pack ref-in-want'
> > +
> > +. ./test-lib.sh
> > +
> > +get_actual_refs() {
>
> Style. "get_actual_refs () {"
>
> > + sed -n '/wanted-refs/,/0001/p' <out | sed '1d;$d' | test-pkt-line
> > unpack >actual_refs
>
> Unnecessary piping of sed output into another sed invocation?
>
> sed -n -e '/wanted-refs/,/0001/{
> /wanted-refs/d
> /0001/d
> p
> }'
>
> or something like that?
Yeah thanks for the help with sed :)
--
Brandon Williams
