On 6/1/2022 3:33 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 01 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2022 8:29 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:>
>>> On Wed, Jun 01 2022, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> The previous change added a warning when valid_remote() detects
>>>> credentials in the URL. Since remotes are validated multiple times per
>>>> process, this causes multiple warnings to print.
>>>
>>> Why are we validating remotes multiple times per process? Can't we just
>>> do it once?
>>>
>>> Is this a case of two callers going through the whole machinery and not
>>> being aware of one another?
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's a pain to deal with that in this case, but it would be
>>> better to note why here than taking it as a given.
>>
>> We could certainly investigate this more, but it seems like a more
>> problematic approach than the one taken here. We could add a "is_valid"
>> bit to struct remote, but then could some code path modify that struct
>> after it was validated?
>
> I tested this a bit and I think this alternate approach is simpler, and
> it passes your tests:
...
> +static void valid_remote_at_end(const struct remote *remote)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < remote->url_nr; i++)
> + check_if_creds_in_url(remote->url[i]);
> +}
> +
> static const char *alias_url(const char *url, struct rewrites *r)
> {
> int i, j;
> @@ -687,6 +692,7 @@ remotes_remote_get_1(struct remote_state *remote_state, const char *name,
> add_url_alias(remote_state, ret, name);
> if (!valid_remote(ret))
> return NULL;
> + valid_remote_at_end(ret);
> return ret;
> }
>
> I.e. we already have one spot where we get the full remote config, you
> were just hooking into valid_remote() which we call N times while doing
> that, let's just call it at the end.
Thanks for finding a place where the current behavior only runs once.
I agree that this is a much simpler approach and reduces this series
back down to one.
Thanks,
-Stolee
