From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CB11F462 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726521AbfFDSvK (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:51:10 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:46242 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1726261AbfFDSvK (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:51:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 24173 invoked by uid 109); 4 Jun 2019 18:51:10 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 18:51:10 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 16534 invoked by uid 111); 4 Jun 2019 18:51:54 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 14:51:54 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 04 Jun 2019 14:51:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 14:51:08 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Matthew DeVore Cc: Emily Shaffer , Matthew DeVore , jonathantanmy@google.com, jrn@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org, dstolee@microsoft.com, jeffhost@microsoft.com, jrnieder@gmail.com, pclouds@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] list-objects-filter: implement composite filters Message-ID: <20190604185108.GA14738@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1f95597eedc4c651868601c0ff7c4a4d97ca4457.1558484115.git.matvore@google.com> <20190528215359.GB133078@google.com> <20190531204821.GC4641@comcast.net> <20190531211041.GA19792@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190601001231.GF4641@comcast.net> <20190603123435.GA18953@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190603222247.GG4641@comcast.net> <20190604161332.GA29603@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20190604171952.GI4641@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190604171952.GI4641@comcast.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Matthew DeVore wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 12:13:32PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > - return has_reserved_character(subspec, errbuf) || > > > - url_decode(subspec, errbuf) || > > > - gently_parse_list_objects_filter( > > > - &filter_options->sub[new_index], subspec->buf, errbuf); > > > + decoded = url_percent_decode(subspec->buf); > > > > I think you can get rid of has_reserved_character() now, too. > > The purpose of has_reserved_character is to allow for future > extensibility if someone decides to implement a more sophisticated DSL > and give meaning to these characters. That may be a long-shot, but it > seems worth it. I think you'll find that -Wunused-function complains, though, if nobody is calling it. I wasn't sure if what you showed in the interdiff was meant to be final (I had to add a few other variable declarations to make it compile, too). > > The reserved character list is still used on the encoding side. But I > > think you could switch to strbuf_add_urlencode() there? > > strbuf_addstr_urlencode will either escape or not escape all rfc3986 > reserved characters, and that set includes both : and +. The former > should not require escaping since it's a common character in filter > specs, and I would like the hand-encoded combine specs to be relatively > easy to type and read. The + must be escaped since it is used as part of > the combine:... syntax to delimit sub filters. So > strbuf_addstr_url_encode would have to be more customizable to make it > work for this context. I'd like to add a parameterizable should_escape > predicate (iow function pointer) which strbuf_addstr_urlencode accepts. > I actually think this will be more readable than the current strbuf API. That makes some sense, and I agree that readability is a good goal. Do we not need to be escaping colons in other URLs? Or are the strings you're generating not true by-the-book URLs? I'm just wondering if we could take this opportunity to improve the URLs we output elsewhere, too. -Peff