-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 369
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: revert skip validation #2023
Conversation
…feeullah/revertskipvalidation
…apis/nodejs-storage into shaffeeullah/revertskipvalidation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One more comment.
@frankyn i think this system test is failing because it's not returning the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need some integration tests to associate with the new behavior
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One last nit, @shaffeeullah, this will be blocked until the header is no longer allowlist required.
Otherwise, this LGTM! Thank you!
…feeullah/revertskipvalidation
…feeullah/revertskipvalidation
…apis/nodejs-storage into shaffeeullah/revertskipvalidation
There are already integration tests associated with this new boolean. False case: nodejs-storage/system-test/storage.ts Line 2181 in 0845525
True case: nodejs-storage/system-test/storage.ts Line 2148 in 0845525
There are also a few unit tests verifying that validation happens correctly. (Let me know if you'd like me to link those. I know they exist because I originally broke them with this change; they're doing good work!) |
…apis/nodejs-storage into shaffeeullah/revertskipvalidation
@frankyn What is the timeline for that? |
…feeullah/revertskipvalidation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One more comment; otherwise LGTM, we can't merge this until the feature is available in production to everyone unless y'all are planning making a release until then.
if (validateStream) { | ||
// We must check if the server decompressed the data on serve because hash | ||
// validation is not possible in this case. | ||
let failed = (crc32c || md5) && safeToValidate; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think i got confused with failed
variable; what does it do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
failed defaults to true (if crc32c || md5
) and then later gets changed to false
if it passes. (see below lines.) It's not true that it failed if it wasnt safeToValidate
to begin with, so we need to make sure that's true
before assuming failed
@frankyn says this is launched, clear to merge |
Fixes #709