On 6/1/2022 4:21 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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? > > Two separate parser parsing the same string to produce (supposedly) > equivalent parse results is a bit disturbing, and I am not sure if > "is_valid" bit helps that. > > Adding "user" and "password" members to the struct, and retire the > existing "parser" (instead it would just use the pre-parsed > components stored in the struct) would. It would be a much more > involved change, and it is something more than we would want to do > in a regression fix patch. > > But this series is a new feature development, so... Yes, you're right. I should use the output 'struct url_inf' from url_normalize() to construct the redacted URL. It has the downside that the output URL can be slightly different from the input URL, but a user should still be able to diagnose how to resolve the situation. Thanks, -Stolee
