Replace chars we can't decode with placeholder char #953
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
It's possible that the console output from EC2 contains non string chars we can't utf-8 decode. When that happens we were previously just leaving the input untouched, i.e base64 encoded. This made for an awkward interface for customers. We couldn't guarantee whether or not the content was base64 decoded because it would depend on the actual ec2 console output content. This change attempts to make things more consistent by replacing any chars we can't decode with the unicode `\ufffd` char (the unicode replace char, i.e the question mark). The one downside with this approach is that it is possible to sometimes not get the unaltered contents of the console output because chars have been replaced with `\ufffd`. We'll need to weigh whether or not we think that's worth the benefit. Given this content is usually text content, this seems like a reasonable compromise.
Current coverage is 97.27%@@ develop #953 diff @@
==========================================
Files 43 43
Lines 6909 6909
Methods 0 0
Messages 0 0
Branches 0 0
==========================================
+ Hits 6720 6721 +1
+ Misses 189 188 -1
Partials 0 0
|
|
🚢 The only backwards incompatibility I see is if a user consistently got base64 encoded data back they would have base64 decoded it, but that seems very unlikely since it is a console output. It would also be pretty difficult and a weird workflow to accurately differentiate between base64 encoded and utf-8 encoded. |
|
I agree. I'll add a little more info in the changelog description for this change to explain this. I do think that not having a consistent return type is reasonably in the "bug fix" bucket. |
jamesls
force-pushed
the
unicode-decode-error
branch
from
742bd2e to
9781a71
Compare
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.
It's possible that the console output from EC2 contains
non string chars we can't utf-8 decode. When that happens
we were previously just leaving the input untouched, i.e
base64 encoded.
This made for an awkward interface for customers. We couldn't guarantee
whether or not the content was base64 decoded because it would depend
on the actual ec2 console output content.
This change attempts to make things more consistent by
replacing any chars we can't decode with the unicode
\ufffdchar (the unicode replace char, i.e the question mark).The one downside with this approach is that it is possible
to sometimes not get the unaltered contents of the console
output because chars have been replaced with
\ufffd.We'll need to weigh whether or not we think that's worth
the benefit. Given this content is usually text content,
this seems like a reasonable compromise.
cc @kyleknap @JordonPhillips