Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gitweb: redacted e-mail addresses feature.

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 11:48:38 -0700

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:

> But:
>
>>  sub parse_tag {
>>  	my $tag_id = shift;
>>  	my %tag;
>> @@ -3471,6 +3493,10 @@ sub parse_tag {
>>  			if ($tag{'author'} =~ m/^([^<]+) <([^>]*)>/) {
>>  				$tag{'author_name'}  = $1;
>>  				$tag{'author_email'} = $2;
>> +				if (gitweb_check_feature('email_privacy')) {
>> +					$tag{'author_email'} = "private";
>> +					$tag{'author'} = hide_mailaddr($tag{'author'});
>> +				}
>
> This code seems quite awkward, we've already done the regex match, but
> this code:
>
>> [snip]
>> +sub hide_mailaddr_if_private {
>> +	my $line = shift;
>> +	return $line unless (gitweb_check_feature('email_privacy') &&
>> +						$line =~ m/^([^<]+) <([^>]*)>/);
>> +	return hide_mailaddr($line)
>> +}
>> +
>> +sub hide_mailaddr {
>> +	my $mailaddr = shift;
>> +	$mailaddr =~ s/<([^>]*)>/<private>/;
>> +	return $mailaddr;
>> +}
>
> Is going to do it again incrementally, and then just act on a
> search-replacement if we've got the feature enabled.

I think you misread the patch the same way as I did initially.  What
is called in parse_tag is not the "if-private" version---the caller
knows that $tag{'author'} MUST BE an address so unconditionally redact
when the feature is set by bypassing the _if_private variant.

Having said that, I do think

>     sub maybe_hide_email {
>         my ($email, $ref) = shift;
>         return $email unless gitweb_check_feature('email_privacy');
>         $$ref = "private" if $ref;
>         return hide_email($email);
>     }

this helper is how you would simplify these numerous callers.

>>  	} elsif ($format eq 'patch') {
>> -		local $/ = undef;
>> -		print <$fd>;
>> +		while (my $line = <$fd>) {
>> +			print hide_mailaddr_if_private($line);
>> +		}
>
> Urm, have you tested this? How does a while loop over a <$fd> make sense
> when $/ is undef, the readline() operator will always return just one
> record, so having a while loop doesn't make sense.
>
> I'm not sure of the input here, but given that if you're expecting to
> replace all e-mail addresses on all lines with this function that's not
> how it'll work, the s/// doesn't have a /g, so it'll stop at the first
> replacement.
>
>>  		close $fd
>>  			or print "Reading git-format-patch failed\n";
>>  	}

All true.  This one is reading from "format-patch --stdout" output,
but for the reasons I mentioned in my review, I do not think it
should touch the 'patch' output at all.