Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> There should be no change of behavior here, except for two
> broken-protocol cases:
>
> - if the client sends multiple conflicting object-format capabilities
> (which they should not), we'll now choose the last one rather than
> the first. We could also detect and complain about the duplicates
> quite easily now, which we could not before, but I didn't do so
> here.
I'd imagine that it would have been easy to retain the "use the
first one" behaviour if we wanted to; I do not think this behaviour
change really matters in practice, so it's OK.
> - if the client sends a bogus "object-format" with no equals sign,
> we'll now say so, rather than "unknown object format: ''"
OK.
> @@ -228,22 +241,6 @@ static int has_capability(const struct strvec *keys, const char *capability,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void check_algorithm(struct repository *r, struct strvec *keys)
> -{
> - int client = GIT_HASH_SHA1, server = hash_algo_by_ptr(r->hash_algo);
> - const char *algo_name;
> -
> - if (has_capability(keys, "object-format", &algo_name)) {
> - client = hash_algo_by_name(algo_name);
> - if (client == GIT_HASH_UNKNOWN)
> - die("unknown object format '%s'", algo_name);
> - }
> -
> - if (client != server)
> - die("mismatched object format: server %s; client %s\n",
> - r->hash_algo->name, hash_algos[client].name);
> -}
> -
> enum request_state {
> PROCESS_REQUEST_KEYS,
> PROCESS_REQUEST_DONE,
> @@ -317,7 +314,10 @@ static int process_request(void)
> if (!command)
> die("no command requested");
>
> - check_algorithm(the_repository, &keys);
> + if (client_hash_algo != hash_algo_by_ptr(the_repository->hash_algo))
> + die("mismatched object format: server %s; client %s\n",
> + the_repository->hash_algo->name,
> + hash_algos[client_hash_algo].name);
OK.
