You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A few of the bundle URI tests point config at a fake bundle; they care
only that the client has been configured with _some_ bundle, but it
doesn't have to actually contain objects.
For the file:// tests, we use "$BUNDLE_URI_REPO_URI/fake.bdl", a
non-existent file inside the actual remote repo. But for git:// and
http:// tests, we use "https://example.com/fake.bdl". This works OK in
practice, but it means we actually make a request to example.com (which
returns a placeholder HTML response). That can be annoying when running
the test suite on a spotty network (it doesn't produce a wrong result,
since we expect it to fail, but it may introduce delays).
We can reduce our dependency on the outside world by using a local URL.
It would work to just do "file://$PWD/fake.bdl" here, since the bundle
code does not care about the actual location. But in the long run I
suspect we may have more restrictions on which protocols can be passed
around as bundle URIs. So instead, let's stick with the file:// repo's
pattern and just point to a bogus name based on the remote repo's URL.
For http this makes perfect sense; we'll make a request to the local
http server and find that there's nothing there. For git:// it's a
little weird, as you wouldn't normally access a bundle file over git://
at all. But it's probably the most reasonable guess we can make for now,
and anybody who tightens protocol selection later will know better
what's the best path forward.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
0 commit comments