testing: slightly better comparison for x509.CertPool #10165
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
theme/connect
dnephin
added
the
pr/no-changelog
dnephin
force-pushed
the
dnephin/improve-cert-pool-cmp
branch
from
34a6812
to
0624c75
Compare
rboyer
approved these changes
May 6, 2021
|
🍒 If backport labels were added before merging, cherry-picking will start automatically. To retroactively trigger a backport after merging, add backport labels and re-run https://circleci.com/gh/hashicorp/consul/364288. |
|
🍒✅ Cherry pick of commit 23a2306 onto |
hc-github-team-consul-core
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 6, 2021
testing: slightly better comparison for x509.CertPool
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow up #10004 based on a suggestion in golang/go#45891 (comment)
Use the exported function to compare the
x509.CertPoolinstead of comparing unexported fields and excluding one. This should be functionally the same (both implementations cared the Subjects, but this one is more future proof.