-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.4k
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
crypto: move field initialization to class #23610
Closed
theholla
wants to merge
2
commits into
nodejs:master
from
theholla:initialize-client-hello-parser-fields
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I think you also need/want to add default initializers here, for the 5 that are later applied to
ClientHello
directly?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've updated the PR and moved the default initializers from
ClientHello
toClientHelloParser
, which I believe is what was needed in the first place.Thanks for catching that. I'm not very familiar with C++ and appreciate the keen eye!
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.
@theholla Just for context – I don’t think there was anything wrong with adding the initializers to
ClientHello
, as long asClientHelloParser
has all initializers that were previously in its own constructor :)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.
That's good to know, thanks! While you're here, I wonder if you see any issues with the two fields that are listed as one type in one class, and another in the next? Both
servername_size
andocsp_request
are listed as different types betweenClientHello
andClientHelloParser
.This predated the PR but stood out to me as a possible issue.
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.
Puh … that’s a good question.
For
ocsp_request_
, I searched for instances of that in the source code, and it seems like the only values are0
and1
– I think you could change the type in one so it matches the other, if you like. (I could totally be wrong about this being a “boolean“, though…)For
servername_size_
, I’m not sure. It looks to me like we wouldn’t do anything wrong by making both fieldsuint16_t
s, and remove thestatic_cast
when converting …Either way, this might be better answered by @nodejs/crypto experts?