"M Hickford via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: M Hickford <mirth.hickford@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: M Hickford <mirth.hickford@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/contrib/credential/libsecret/git-credential-libsecret.c b/contrib/credential/libsecret/git-credential-libsecret.c
> index 2c5d76d789f..3f2b530db79 100644
> --- a/contrib/credential/libsecret/git-credential-libsecret.c
> +++ b/contrib/credential/libsecret/git-credential-libsecret.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct credential {
> char *path;
> char *username;
> char *password;
> + char *password_expiry_utc;
> };
>
> #define CREDENTIAL_INIT { 0 }
> @@ -54,6 +55,20 @@ struct credential_operation {
>
> /* ----------------- Secret Service functions ----------------- */
>
> +static const SecretSchema schema = {
> + "org.git.Password",
> + SECRET_SCHEMA_NONE,
> + {
> + { "user", SECRET_SCHEMA_ATTRIBUTE_STRING },
> + { "object", SECRET_SCHEMA_ATTRIBUTE_STRING },
> + { "protocol", SECRET_SCHEMA_ATTRIBUTE_STRING },
> + { "port", SECRET_SCHEMA_ATTRIBUTE_INTEGER },
> + { "server", SECRET_SCHEMA_ATTRIBUTE_STRING },
> + { "password_expiry_utc", SECRET_SCHEMA_ATTRIBUTE_INTEGER },
> + { NULL, 0 },
> + }
> +};
We used to use the bog-standard "COMPAT_NETWORK" but now we are
adding an extra element, and that makes it necessary to define our
own? OK.
> static char *make_label(struct credential *c)
> {
> if (c->port)
> @@ -78,6 +93,9 @@ static GHashTable *make_attr_list(struct credential *c)
> g_hash_table_insert(al, "port", g_strdup_printf("%hu", c->port));
> if (c->path)
> g_hash_table_insert(al, "object", g_strdup(c->path));
> + if (c->password_expiry_utc)
> + g_hash_table_insert(al, "password_expiry_utc",
> + g_strdup(c->password_expiry_utc));
>
> return al;
> }
> @@ -101,9 +119,11 @@ static int keyring_get(struct credential *c)
>
> attributes = make_attr_list(c);
> items = secret_service_search_sync(service,
> - SECRET_SCHEMA_COMPAT_NETWORK,
> + &schema,
> attributes,
> - SECRET_SEARCH_LOAD_SECRETS | SECRET_SEARCH_UNLOCK,
> + SECRET_SEARCH_LOAD_SECRETS | SECRET_SEARCH_UNLOCK |
> + // for backwards compatibility
No // comments please.
> + SECRET_SCHEMA_DONT_MATCH_NAME,
SECRET_SCHEMA_DONT_MATCH_NAME does not seem to be listed as one of
the flags to be used with secret_service_search_sync(),
https://www.manpagez.com/html/libsecret-1/libsecret-1-0.18.6/SecretService.php#secret-service-search-sync
and the only reference to it I found was as a flag to be placed in
the schema.
https://www.manpagez.com/html/libsecret-1/libsecret-1-0.18.6/migrating-schemas.php
https://www.manpagez.com/html/libsecret-1/libsecret-1-0.18.6/libsecret-SecretSchema.php
But I'll take your word for it.
I found nothing unexpected or surprising in the rest of the patch to
this file. They all looked just a fallout of having to store and
retrieve one extra item from the database together with many other
things we already store and retrieve. Cleanly written.
> diff --git a/t/lib-credential.sh b/t/lib-credential.sh
> index 5ea8bc9f1dc..9ebf7eeae48 100644
> --- a/t/lib-credential.sh
> +++ b/t/lib-credential.sh
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ helper_test_clean() {
> reject $1 https example.com store-user
> reject $1 https example.com user1
> reject $1 https example.com user2
> + reject $1 https example.com user3
> reject $1 http path.tld user
> reject $1 https timeout.tld user
> reject $1 https sso.tld
> @@ -298,6 +299,35 @@ helper_test_timeout() {
> '
> }
>
> +helper_test_password_expiry_utc() {
> + HELPER=$1
> +
> + test_expect_success "helper ($HELPER) stores password_expiry_utc" '
> + check approve $HELPER <<-\EOF
> + protocol=https
> + host=example.com
> + username=user3
> + password=pass
> + password_expiry_utc=9999999999
> + EOF
> + '
>
> + test_expect_success "helper ($HELPER) gets password_expiry_utc" '
> + check fill $HELPER <<-\EOF
> + protocol=https
> + host=example.com
> + username=user3
> + --
> + protocol=https
> + host=example.com
> + username=user3
> + password=pass
> + password_expiry_utc=9999999999
> + --
> + EOF
> + '
> +}
> +
Is any random number usable for this test, or is there some
constraints (like, "it cannot be too small to be a timestamp in the
past, because the entry will be expired immediately")? If there is
some constraint like that, is it a good idea to also test that
(like, "make sure an entry with expiry already happened is
rejected")?
Thanks.
