Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> writes:
> + wanted-refs section
> + * This section is only included if the client has requested a
> + ref using a 'want-ref' line and if a packfile section is also
> + included in the response.
> +
> + * Always begins with the section header "wanted-refs".
> +
> + * The server will send a ref listing ("<oid> <refname>") for
> + each reference requested using 'want-ref' lines.
> +
> + * The server SHOULD NOT send any refs which were not requested
> + using 'want-ref' lines and a client MUST ignore refs which
> + weren't requested.
Just being curious, but the above feels the other way around. Why
are we being more lenient to writers of broken server than writers
of broken clients? The number of installations they need to take
back and replace is certainly lower for the former, which means
that, if exchanges of unsoliclited refs are unwanted, clients should
notice and barf (or warn) if the server misbehaves, and the server
should be forbidden from sending unsolicited refs, no?
> diff --git a/t/t5703-upload-pack-ref-in-want.sh
> b/t/t5703-upload-pack-ref-in-want.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 000000000..0ef182970
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t5703-upload-pack-ref-in-want.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='upload-pack ref-in-want'
> +
> +. ./test-lib.sh
> +
> +get_actual_refs() {
Style. "get_actual_refs () {"
> + sed -n '/wanted-refs/,/0001/p' <out | sed '1d;$d' | test-pkt-line
> unpack >actual_refs
Unnecessary piping of sed output into another sed invocation?
sed -n -e '/wanted-refs/,/0001/{
/wanted-refs/d
/0001/d
p
}'
or something like that?
