StatObject validates names twice

[bboreham]

Either statObject should not be doing the validation, or StatObject is redundant, because the first 7 lines of each function are identical.

minio-go/api-stat.go

Lines 60 to 80 in daea25a

	// StatObject verifies if object exists and you have permission to access.
	func (c *Client) StatObject(ctx context.Context, bucketName, objectName string, opts StatObjectOptions) (ObjectInfo, error) {
	// Input validation.
	if err := s3utils.CheckValidBucketName(bucketName); err != nil {
	return ObjectInfo{}, err
	}
	if err := s3utils.CheckValidObjectName(objectName); err != nil {
	return ObjectInfo{}, err
	}
	return c.statObject(ctx, bucketName, objectName, opts)
	}
	// Lower level API for statObject supporting pre-conditions and range headers.
	func (c *Client) statObject(ctx context.Context, bucketName, objectName string, opts StatObjectOptions) (ObjectInfo, error) {
	// Input validation.
	if err := s3utils.CheckValidBucketName(bucketName); err != nil {
	return ObjectInfo{}, err
	}
	if err := s3utils.CheckValidObjectName(objectName); err != nil {
	return ObjectInfo{}, err
	}

[harshavardhana]

Either statObject should not be doing the validation, or StatObject is redundant, because the first 7 lines of each function are identical.

what is the problem if it does double validation? @bboreham - feel free to clean it up if you wish.

It is simply duplicated due to layers of re-use and historical.

[bboreham]

Problems include run-time cost and unnecessary code for the reader to understand.

[harshavardhana]

Problems include run-time cost and unnecessary code for the reader to understand.

runtime cost? can you show me?

[bboreham]

I don't know why you're being so aggressive here.

minio-go/pkg/s3utils/utils.go

Lines 350 to 355 in daea25a

	if !validBucketNameStrict.MatchString(bucketName) {
	err = errors.New("Bucket name contains invalid characters")
	}
	return err
	}
	if !validBucketName.MatchString(bucketName) {

[harshavardhana]

I don't know why you're being so aggressive here.

Not mean to be aggressive, our wish is to get more information into this issue.

Since you said runtime cost - can you share how you measured it? we would like to avoid costs that are greater than the HTTP costs so it is important that we get enough information.

However, the de-duplication of the code is fixed in the master branch.