Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> writes:
> Git advertises the same capabilities^{} ref in its ref advertisement for push
> but since it never did so for fetch, the client didn't need to handle this
> case. Handle it.
>
> In this aspect, JGit is compliant with the specification in pack-protocol.txt.
The last sentence somehow looks out of place.
> + int got_dummy_ref_with_capabilities_declaration = 0;
>
> *list = NULL;
> for (saw_response = 0; ; saw_response = 1) {
> @@ -172,8 +173,24 @@ struct ref **get_remote_heads(int in, char *src_buf,
> size_t src_len,
> continue;
> }
>
> + if (!strcmp(name, "capabilities^{}")) {
> + if (saw_response)
> + warning("protocol error: unexpected
> capabilities^{}, "
> + "continuing anyway");
OK. saw_response tells us that we saw ".have", a valid ref, or "shallow",
but "capabilities^{}" should happen before any of them, so that is a
protocol violation. Makes perfect sense.
> + if (got_dummy_ref_with_capabilities_declaration)
> + warning("protocol error: multiple
> capabilities^{}, "
> + "continuing anyway");
> + got_dummy_ref_with_capabilities_declaration = 1;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> if (!check_ref(name, flags))
> continue;
> +
> + if (got_dummy_ref_with_capabilities_declaration)
> + warning("protocol error: unexpected ref after
> capabilities^{}, "
> + "using this ref and continuing anyway");
Likewise. "capabilities^{}" is used when we cannot piggyback the
capability list after a real ref, so it is unusual to see a real ref
after seeing one. Makes perfect sense.
Do we want to abort the connection in these cases, I wonder, though?
Thanks.
