)]}'
{
  "commit": "a6e2be46c6fa2e65ecd5ebeb4ff6fad3ad333dc2",
  "tree": "f21b128829fc508f2c373cb5e5815dc84885cc83",
  "parents": [
    "ec2a08dda8e7b156253abcf21f2c7ea80de39f82"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "David Benjamin",
    "email": "davidben@google.com",
    "time": "Wed Feb 21 22:59:16 2024 -0500"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Boringssl LUCI CQ",
    "email": "boringssl-scoped@luci-project-accounts.iam.gserviceaccount.com",
    "time": "Fri Feb 23 18:27:06 2024 +0000"
  },
  "message": "Add tests for what happens when no certificate is configured\n\nWe have ssl_has_certificate and ssl_has_private_key calls scattered\nthroughout libssl, but they\u0027re never actually tested. The checks are\nalso a little subtle because of cert-\u003echain\u0027s weird representation of\nthe leaf being missing but a chain configured.\n\nIn hindsight, possibly we should have made them separate fields, but\nit\u0027s too late now. We\u0027d have to get rid of SSL_CTX_get0_chain and\nSSL_get0_chain. Normally we don\u0027t bother with these functions, under the\n\"you should know what you configured\" theory, but one caller needed it\nrecently in\nhttps://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/66087\n\nThe tests also confirm that most of the ssl_has_private_key calls,\nother than the one in ssl_has_certificate, are redundant. The\nssl_has_certificate calls are also in an odd place.\n\nThis will all get shuffled around with SSL_CREDENTIAL, so set up tests\nfirst.\n\nBug: 249\nChange-Id: If1bb7097a15649e593886c3c22e2cc829a853830\nReviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/66508\nReviewed-by: Bob Beck \u003cbbe@google.com\u003e\nCommit-Queue: David Benjamin \u003cdavidben@google.com\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "d7953e506c4a71e7f3aa04c3760fb9a207d0bfd2",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "ssl/ssl_test.cc",
      "new_id": "bc0c842f4ebf3f74a272cf49cfba634533a07a80",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "ssl/ssl_test.cc"
    }
  ]
}