On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 2:49 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:44:47AM -0800, Masaya Suzuki wrote: > > > When GIT_CURL_VERBOSE is set, libcurl produces request/response headers > > to stderr. However, if the response is an error response and > > CURLOPT_FAILONERROR is set, libcurl stops parsing the response, and it > > won't dump the headers. Showing HTTP response headers is useful for > > debugging, especially for non-OK responses. > > Out of curiosity, does GIT_TRACE_CURL do any better? Or is it simply > that curl closes the handle when it sees the bad response code, and > nobody ever gets to see the rest of the data? curl disregards the rest of the contents when it sees a bad response code when CURLOPT_FAILONERROR is set (https://github.com/curl/curl/blob/dea3f94298ac0859464768959488938c4e104545/lib/http.c#L3691). So nobody gets the rest of the data. > > > This is substantially same as setting http_options.keep_error to all > > requests. Hence, remove this option. > > The assumption here is that every code path using FAILONERROR is > prepared to handle the failing http response codes itself (since we no > longer set it at all in get_active_slot()). Is that so? I was thinking that I covered the all code paths using FAILONERROR, but it seems it's not the case. http-walker.c and http-push.c also calls get_active_slot(). I'll narrow down the scope on removing FAILONERROR. > > Anything that uses handle_curl_result() is OK. That means run_one_slot() > is fine, which in turn covers run_slot() for RPCs, and http_request() > for normal one-at-a-time requests. But what about the parallel multiple > requests issued by the dumb-http walker code? Right. I'll keep FAILONERROR in get_active_slot and remove it only for the code paths that can handle HTTP errors. > > There I think we end up in step_active_slots(), which calls into > finish_active_slot() for completed requests. I think that > unconditionally fetches the http code without bothering to look at > whether curl reported success or not. > > So I _think_ that's probably all of the users of the curl handles > provided by get_active_slot(). Though given the tangled mess of our HTTP > code, I won't be surprised if there's a corner case I missed in that > analysis. > > -Peff
