fix: getIpFamily - do not expect specific error for clients without IPv6 #120
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
michelkaporin
force-pushed
the
fix/auth-getIpFamily-other-exceptions
branch
from
230ee1b to
f4ff9a5
Compare
michelkaporin
changed the title
saark-snyk
reviewed
Jan 17, 2022
|
This PR modifies files linked to issues tracked in Stepsize. You might want to review their status, priority, and scope.
|
michelkaporin
force-pushed
the
fix/auth-getIpFamily-other-exceptions
branch
from
3acde7a to
52acd8f
Compare
saark-snyk
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2022
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 4.5.2 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does this PR do?
This PR is a replacement for previous PR to fix the regression for IPv6 clients. We've noticed that some of the clients who don't have full IPv6 supports started to authenticate using IPv6 which broke their VS Code extension.
Some users encountered ENETUNREACH error instead of EADDRNOTAVAIL as wrongly assumed in the previous fix PR. Thus we shouldn't rely on specific error, rather on an error. This is how it was before the refactoring around http took place and is consistent with Snyk CLI code.
Where should the reviewer start?
How should this be manually tested?
Any background context you want to provide?
This fixes the following issues:
https://snyk.slack.com/archives/C026PS65XA8/p1642092098003500
https://snyk.slack.com/archives/C01FA88CUU9/p1641979366003300?thread_ts=1641978929.003100&cid=C01FA88CUU9
https://github.com/snyk/vscode-extension/issues/132 🤞
Screenshots
Additional questions