-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
feat(clp-s): Explicitly reject unstructured log inputs during compression. #1434
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
578aa1e
Add support for detecting unstructured logtext inputs.
gibber9809 2ed2c39
Explicitly reject regular logtext as input to compression in clp-s.
gibber9809 0f5b069
Fix typo.
gibber9809 9641345
Update comments in could_be_logtext per review suggestion.
gibber9809 45a5732
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into detect-logtext
gibber9809 b4a815e
Merge branch 'main' into detect-logtext
gibber9809 010c378
Merge branch 'main' into detect-logtext
gibber9809 e7456b5
Merge branch 'main' into detect-logtext
kirkrodrigues File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
We should try to follow the google and linux guidelines on comments. Generally speaking, the only time to have comments inline of code should be to explain some confusing behaviour (usually from an external library/dependency).
For comments applying to only a few lines usually it implies the naming is too confusing to read or the comment is just repeating the code. If it is not possible to making the naming in the code readable on its own, then we can add an implementation comment above the method/function definition. This puts all of the logic in one place so a reader can understand the implementation without needing to scan everything.
In this specific case, I think merging these comments together above the definition is fine.
(Sorry, I know most of the code generally doesn't follow this yet, but we need to start somewhere.)