Hi Frank, On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 10:32 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > +/* Add an outgoing HTTP request "Header: Value". Copies string. */ > > > +int debuginfod_add_http_header (debuginfod_client *client, const char* > > > header); > > > > This one seems different from the others and has a specific use case > > just for the debuginfod server. Are you sure it is generic enough to be > > added as a new public interface? If we add this can we do it separately > > from other debuginfo-client progress improvements? > > I think it has a chance to be useful to other clients too, for example > for other proxy / authentication schemes. And given that there is a > shared library boundary, private APIs aren't in easy reach. > "separately" as in separate commits? ... I suppose, if it really > matters.
Yes, please as a separate commit. It makes it so much easier on the reviewers if the patches are smaller. The reason I am slightly hesitant is because this feels like a feature with corner cases that might not be clear. What about other headers than Agent string if they have been set/will be set for example. Could you expand a little on the use case? I see you set an X- Forwarded-For header, but that seems it can be easily forged. I see it might be interesting for testing, but would you use it in production? > > > +/* Return currently active URL, if known. String owned by curl, do not > > > free. */ > > > +const char* debuginfod_get_url (debuginfod_client *client); > > > > This does seem useful with the comment that was already made, that > > lifetime of the returned string should be documented. I assume it is > > valid to call this after debuginfod_find_* has returned, but before > > debuginfod_end has been called? > > Clarified this in a followup patch. No, only valid during the progress > callback function itself. That is a pity, it seems useful without having to add a progress function. Then we should probably make sure it doesn't return a value in that case, because I suspect people will use it otherwise and will complain if we break it later. But if we can make it work when the target_handle is valid, that would be nice. > > > +/* Set the user parameter. */ > > > +void debuginfod_set_user_data (debuginfod_client *client, void *value); > > > + > > > +/* Get the user parameter. */ > > > +void* debuginfod_get_user_data (debuginfod_client *client); > > > > In theory I like these additions. But I don't really see the point of > > how they are used. Is the only use case to pass the string "Progress"? > > That is for test coverage. Better to have a "real" test imho. Or at least comment it, so someone doesn't clean up the code. > > If there are no real users for this then I think we should not add > > these at this time. Or is some other client using them? I am not > > really > > against it, but would prefer if we add them separately to keep the > > patches concise. > > GDB would use them pretty much immediately, to be able to prepare a > more informative progress notification (like the file name whose > debuginfo is being sought, instead of its buildid). OK. Yes, that seems like a good use case. But can we add this as a separate feature in a separate commit? Thanks, Mark
