git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, gitster@pobox.com,
	szeder.dev@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] upload-pack.c: allow banning certain object filter(s)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 17:20:32 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200731212032.GD3409@syl.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200731205434.GB1440890@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 04:54:34PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 04:26:31PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > Git clients may ask the server for a partial set of objects, where the
> > set of objects being requested is refined by one or more object filters.
> > Server administrators can configure 'git upload-pack' to allow or ban
> > these filters by setting the 'uploadpack.allowFilter' variable to
> > 'true' or 'false', respectively.
> >
> > However, administrators using bitmaps may wish to allow certain kinds of
> > object filters, but ban others. Specifically, they may wish to allow
> > object filters that can be optimized by the use of bitmaps, while
> > rejecting other object filters which aren't and represent a perceived
> > performance degradation (as well as an increased load factor on the
> > server).
> >
> > Allow configuring 'git upload-pack' to support object filters on a
> > case-by-case basis by introducing two new configuration variables:
> >
> >   - 'uploadpackfilter.allow'
> >   - 'uploadpackfilter.<kind>.allow'
> >
> > where '<kind>' may be one of 'blobNone', 'blobLimit', 'tree', and so on.
>
> Minor nit, but <kind> is "blob:none", "blob:limit", etc. The code and
> documentation gets this right; it's just the commit message.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is a casualty of updating the syntax as the series
> was developed. One trick I use is to avoid repeating explanations that
> are in the documentation from the patch already. I.e., explain "why"
> here, but it's OK to let "what" come from the patch itself. That's not
> only one less thing to remember to update, but it's less for reviewers
> to read through, too.
>
> </meta-patch-advice>

Good advice, and you're right that <kind> is blob:none and similar, not
'blobNone'. In this case, I think the "why" is pretty boring, so I don't
mind repeating myself a little bit in the commit message.
>
> > +test_expect_success 'upload-pack fails banned object filters' '
> > +	test_config -C srv.bare uploadpackfilter.blob:none.allow false &&
> > +	test_must_fail ok=sigpipe git clone --no-checkout --filter=blob:none \
> > +		"file://$(pwd)/srv.bare" pc3 2>err &&
> > +	test_i18ngrep "filter '\''blob:none'\'' not supported" err
> > +'
>
> These messages aren't translated now, so we can just use grep, I think.
>
> Ditto in the other tests below.

Ack, yep.

>
> > +static void die_if_using_banned_filter(struct upload_pack_data *data)
> > +{
> > +	struct list_objects_filter_options *banned = banned_filter(data,
> > +								   &data->filter_options);
> > +	struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> > +	if (!banned)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	strbuf_addf(&buf, "git upload-pack: filter '%s' not supported",
> > +		    list_object_filter_config_name(banned->choice));
> > +
> > +	packet_writer_error(&data->writer, "%s\n", buf.buf);
> > +	die("%s", buf.buf);
> > +}
>
> Hmm, the strbuf was unexpected. I'd have just written it out twice.
> After all, the messages don't have to be the same. And perhaps we don't
> want them to be the same? A user receiving the ERR packet would see:
>
>   remote error: git upload-pack: filter 'foo' not supported
>
> do we need the "git upload-pack" part there? Other errors say just
> "upload-pack". IMHO even that is unnecessarily verbose, and I wouldn't
> mind a separate patch to reduce it. But definitely going even longer
> doesn't seem like the right direction. :)

Let's drop 'git upload-pack: ' entirely, and just start the message with
'filter ...'. It looks like you figured out why we use a strbuf here in
your response to the fourth patch.

> I also wondered about the trailing newline. Other callers of
> packet_writer_error() don't seem to use it. I think in practice it
> doesn't matter much because readers will generally be using
> CHOMP_NEWLINE, but it probably makes sense to be consistent.

Dropping the newline should be easy enough.

>
> > [...]
>
> Aside from this nits, this patch looks good to me.
>
> -Peff

Thanks,
Taylor

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-31 21:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-23  1:48 [PATCH v2 0/4] upload-pack: custom allowed object filters Taylor Blau
2020-07-23  1:48 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] list_objects_filter_options: introduce 'list_object_filter_config_name' Taylor Blau
2020-07-23  1:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] upload-pack.c: allow banning certain object filter(s) Taylor Blau
2020-07-23  1:49 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] upload-pack.c: pass 'struct list_objects_filter_options *' Taylor Blau
2020-07-23  1:49 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] upload-pack.c: introduce 'uploadpackfilter.tree.maxDepth' Taylor Blau
2020-07-23 20:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] upload-pack: custom allowed object filters SZEDER Gábor
2020-07-24 16:51   ` Taylor Blau
2020-07-24 19:51     ` Jeff King
2020-07-27 14:25       ` Taylor Blau
2020-07-27 19:34     ` SZEDER Gábor
2020-07-27 19:36       ` Taylor Blau
2020-07-27 19:42         ` Jeff King
2020-07-27 19:59         ` SZEDER Gábor
2020-07-27 20:03           ` Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 20:26 ` [PATCH v3 " Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 20:26   ` [PATCH v3 1/4] list_objects_filter_options: introduce 'list_object_filter_config_name' Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 20:26   ` [PATCH v3 2/4] upload-pack.c: allow banning certain object filter(s) Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 20:54     ` Jeff King
2020-07-31 21:20       ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2020-07-31 20:26   ` [PATCH v3 3/4] upload-pack.c: pass 'struct list_objects_filter_options *' Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 20:26   ` [PATCH v3 4/4] upload-pack.c: introduce 'uploadpackfilter.tree.maxDepth' Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 21:01     ` Jeff King
2020-07-31 21:22       ` Jeff King
2020-07-31 21:30         ` Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 21:29       ` Taylor Blau
2020-07-31 21:36         ` Jeff King
2020-07-31 21:43           ` Jeff King
2020-08-03 18:00 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] upload-pack: custom allowed object filters Taylor Blau
2020-08-03 18:00   ` [PATCH v4 2/3] upload-pack.c: allow banning certain object filter(s) Taylor Blau
2020-08-03 18:00   ` [PATCH v4 1/3] list_objects_filter_options: introduce 'list_object_filter_config_name' Taylor Blau
2020-08-03 18:00   ` [PATCH v4 3/3] upload-pack.c: introduce 'uploadpackfilter.tree.maxDepth' Taylor Blau
2020-08-04  0:37   ` [PATCH v4 0/3] upload-pack: custom allowed object filters Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200731212032.GD3409@syl.lan \
    --to=me@ttaylorr.com \
    --cc=chriscool@tuxfamily.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=szeder.dev@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] upload-pack.c: allow banning certain object filter(s)' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).