Invalid MA is ignored #881
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #881 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 84.21% 84.26% +0.04%
============================================
Files 87 87
Lines 15125 15134 +9
============================================
+ Hits 12738 12753 +15
+ Misses 2387 2381 -6
|
diegomrsantos
force-pushed
the
ma-pb-repeated-field
branch
from
353cc90 to
0c8972f
Compare
| @@ -1128,6 +1131,5 @@ proc getRepeatedField*(pb: ProtoBuffer, field: int, | |||
| if ma.isOk(): | |||
| value.add(ma.get()) | |||
| else: | |||
| value.setLen(0) | |||
| return err(ProtoError.IncorrectBlob) | |||
| debug "Not supported MultiAddress in blob", ma = item | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't seems like the best solution
Maybe create a tryGetRepeatedField, that returns the number of failed parses? This way the caller can handle this however it wants
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would any part of the current codebase use it and in which way? I believe it is better to add code only when it is required to solve a present problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the current version is not relevant anywhere, then we should change this proc to return the number of failed parses (or eq)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And update every usage accordingly (and check it's not used by nimbus & co)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
pushed changes
diegomrsantos
force-pushed
the
ma-pb-repeated-field
branch
6 times, most recently
from
c23698e to
7c39793
Compare
diegomrsantos
force-pushed
the
ma-pb-repeated-field
branch
from
96f94ca to
d18140a
Compare
No description provided.