On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 09:06:55PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > But we can do better. Since supporting the ref-prefix capability is
> > optional anyway, the client has to further cull the response based on
> > their own patterns. So we can simply ignore the patterns once we cross a
> > certain threshold. Note that we have to ignore _all_ patterns, not just
> > the ones past our limit (since otherwise we'd send too little data).
>
> This all makes sense to me. At some point, we should be able to go "I
> don't know what you're trying to do, but let me just ignore all this
> craziness and instead try to give you a useful result sooner rather than
> later".
>
> I do wonder if we should document that the client can't trust us to
> actually do all this culling. In general, I find that it's a matter of
> hygiene for the client to do its own checks, but with this change they
> actually *need* to do them. (Unless they know our limit and that they're
> on the right side of it, but that kind of magic is even less hygienic.)
Perhaps we could say so more explicitly in the v2 protocol spec. I'll
take a look.
> > + else if (skip_prefix(arg, "ref-prefix ", &out)) {
> > + if (too_many_prefixes) {
> > + /* ignore any further ones */
> > + } else if (data.prefixes.nr >= MAX_ALLOWED_PREFIXES) {
> > + strvec_clear(&data.prefixes);
> > + too_many_prefixes = 1;
> > + } else {
> > + strvec_push(&data.prefixes, out);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Is it easier to reason about with something like this
> (whitespace-damaged) on top?
You're the second person to complain about this if-else chain. I'll take
the hint. ;)
> diff --git a/ls-refs.c b/ls-refs.c
> index 839fb0caa9..b3101ff361 100644
> --- a/ls-refs.c
> +++ b/ls-refs.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,6 @@ static int ls_refs_config(const char *var, const
> char *value, void *data)
> int ls_refs(struct repository *r, struct packet_reader *request)
> {
> struct ls_refs_data data;
> - int too_many_prefixes = 0;
>
> memset(&data, 0, sizeof(data));
> strvec_init(&data.prefixes);
> @@ -164,14 +163,8 @@ int ls_refs(struct repository *r, struct
> packet_reader *request)
> else if (!strcmp("symrefs", arg))
> data.symrefs = 1;
> else if (skip_prefix(arg, "ref-prefix ", &out)) {
> - if (too_many_prefixes) {
> - /* ignore any further ones */
> - } else if (data.prefixes.nr >= MAX_ALLOWED_PREFIXES) {
> - strvec_clear(&data.prefixes);
> - too_many_prefixes = 1;
> - } else {
> + if (data.prefixes.nr <= MAX_ALLOWED_PREFIXES)
> strvec_push(&data.prefixes, out);
> - }
> }
Hmm. At first I liked this, because it reduces the number of cases (and
variables!). But there's something really subtle going on here. I
thought at first it should be "<", but you are intentionally
over-allocating by one entry to indicate the overflow. I.e., you've
essentially stuffed the too_many_prefixes boolean into the count.
> @@ -180,6 +173,9 @@ int ls_refs(struct repository *r, struct
> packet_reader *request)
> if (request->status != PACKET_READ_FLUSH)
> die(_("expected flush after ls-refs arguments"));
>
> + if (data.prefixes.nr > MAX_ALLOWED_PREFIXES)
> + strvec_clear(&data.prefixes);
> +
This is far from the parser, but I think that's OK. I'd probably couple
it with a comment explaining why we need to clear rather than using what
we got.
> Maybe even name the macro TOO_MANY_PREFIXES (and bump it by one)
> to make the logic instead be
>
> if (data.prefixes.nr < TOO_MANY_PREFIXES)
> strvec_push(&data.prefixes, out);
> ...
> if (data.prefixes.nr >= TOO_MANY_PREFIXES)
> strvec_clear(&data.prefixes);
At first I thought this was just being cute, but it's an attempt to
compensate for the off-by-one subtlety in the early check. I'll give it
some thought. I kind of like it, but the fact that it took me a minute
or three to be sure the code is correct makes me worried it's being too
clever.
-Peff
