Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] promisor-remote: refactor should_accept_remote() control flow

From: Patrick Steinhardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:21:22 +0100

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 09:05:14AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> diff --git a/promisor-remote.c b/promisor-remote.c
> index 8f2c1280c3..c2f0eb7223 100644
> --- a/promisor-remote.c
> +++ b/promisor-remote.c
> @@ -665,6 +665,12 @@ static int should_accept_remote(enum accept_promisor accept,
>  	const char *remote_name = advertised->name;
>  	const char *remote_url = advertised->url;
>  
> +	if (!remote_url || !*remote_url) {
> +		warning(_("no or empty URL advertised for remote '%s', "
> +			  "ignoring this remote"), remote_name);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (accept == ACCEPT_ALL)
>  		return all_fields_match(advertised, config_info, NULL);
>  

You mention that it shouldn't change behaviour in well-defined cases
where the remote sends non-empty URLs. But does it change behaviour in
ill-defined cases where the remote sends empty ones?

In other words, does this fix a bug that can be hit in the real world?

Patrick