@@ -168,6 +168,8 @@ int ls_refs(struct repository *r, struct packet_reader *request)
}
else if (!strcmp("unborn", arg))
data.unborn = allow_unborn;
+ else
+ die(_("unexpected line: '%s'"), arg);
}
if (request->status != PACKET_READ_FLUSH)
@@ -147,6 +147,19 @@ test_expect_success 'basics of ls-refs' '
test_cmp expect actual
'
+test_expect_success 'ls-refs complains about unknown options' '
+ test-tool pkt-line pack >in <<-EOF &&
+ command=ls-refs
+ object-format=$(test_oid algo)
+ 0001
+ no-such-arg
+ 0000
+ EOF
+
+ test_must_fail test-tool serve-v2 --stateless-rpc 2>err <in &&
+ grep unexpected.line.*no-such-arg err
+'
+
test_expect_success 'basic ref-prefixes' '
test-tool pkt-line pack >in <<-EOF &&
command=ls-refs
The v2 ls-refs command may receive extra arguments from the client, one per pkt-line. The spec is pretty clear that the arguments must come from a specified set, but we silently ignore any unknown entries. For a well-behaved client this doesn't matter, but it makes testing and debugging more confusing. Let's tighten this up to match the spec. In theory this liberal behavior _could_ be useful for extending the protocol. But: - every other part of the protocol requires that the server first indicate that it supports the argument; this includes the fetch and object-info commands, plus the "unborn" capability added to ls-refs itself - it's not a very good extension mechanism anyway; without the server advertising support, clients would have no idea if the argument was silently ignored, or accepted and simply had no effect So we're not really losing anything by tightening this. Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> --- ls-refs.c | 2 ++ t/t5701-git-serve.sh | 13 +++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)