Hi Carlo,

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 03:28:13PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020, Carlo Arenas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > > > @@ -382,8 +382,10 @@ int credential_from_url_gently(struct credential *c, const char *url,
> > > > >               host = at + 1;
> > > > >       }
> > > > >
> > > > > -     c->protocol = xmemdupz(url, proto_end - url);
> > > > > -     c->host = url_decode_mem(host, slash - host);
> > > > > +     if (proto_end && proto_end - url > 0)
> > > > > +             c->protocol = xmemdupz(url, proto_end - url);
> > > >
> > > > What should happen when the protocol isn't present?  Does this mean
> > > > callers will need to be audited to make sure they handle NULL?
> > >
> > > the previous code was ensuring protocol was always at least "" (albeit it
> > > might had been easier to understand with a comment)
> >
> > I fear that my patches did not make it clear that the lenient mode is
> > _only_ used in the config parsing, in which case we very much do not want
> > to have the unspecified parts be interpreted as empty strings.
>
> I think the concern raised was that since we are using the same function
> in both cases there might be unintended consequences on changing the
> semantics for the other case.

Indeed, I share that concern. That's why I wanted to be extra careful
there to make sure that introducing this lenient mode does _not_ change
the non-lenient mode in the least, i.e. it is the reason why I kept 2/3
separate from 3/3.

> the argument made by Jonathan to use something else for configuration
> (as is done in master) will help in that direction, and might be needed
> anyway as your code it otherwise broken for current maint and master,

I am in general not a fan of the idea to have two separate parsers for
essentially the same thing. In this instance, the difference between the
lenient mode and the non-lenient mode is so obvious that I'd rather reuse
the same code (think: Don't Repeat Yourself).

> but if not possible (maybe later?) something like this could probably
> help :
>
> diff --git a/credential.c b/credential.c
> index 88612e583c..f972fcc895 100644
> --- a/credential.c
> +++ b/credential.c
> @@ -389,8 +389,9 @@ int credential_from_url_gently(struct credential *c, const char *url,
>
>  	if (proto_end && proto_end - url > 0)
>  		c->protocol = xmemdupz(url, proto_end - url);
> -	if (slash - url > 0)
> +	if (strict || slash > url)
>  		c->host = url_decode_mem(host, slash - host);
> +
>  	/* Trim leading and trailing slashes from path */
>  	while (*slash == '/')
>  		slash++;
>
> changing the condition there as you suggested to Junio would be a plus IMHO
> as well as getting some test that would excercise the new warning that was
> introduced in credential.c:57

Yes (modulo doing "greater than" comparison on pointers which is IIRC not
permitted in C in general).

Ciao,
Dscho