Fix: Avoid false-negative checks for port #5565
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
When a port is provided via env vars, we're usually told by the CLI that it's unavailable, only to be suggested the same port next.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #5565 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 33.21% 33.31% +0.09%
==========================================
Files 647 647
Lines 9314 9320 +6
Branches 1325 1329 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 3094 3105 +11
+ Misses 5605 5599 -6
- Partials 615 616 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
ndelangen
approved these changes
Feb 14, 2019
|
Aw thanks @ndelangen! That's legitimately such a nice thing to say. 🎉 Adding it to my bio everywhere haha |
shilman
added
release
patch:done
shilman
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 15, 2019
…gative Fix: Avoid false-negative checks for port
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Issue:
When a port is provided via env vars, we're usually told by the CLI that it's unavailable, only to be suggested the same port next.
The usage of these
SBCONFIG_CONFIG_<NAME>env vars is only intended for internals, as far as I'm aware. Nevertheless, when using theSBCONFIG_CONFIG_PORTwe're left with an unexpected behaviour.What I did
Make sure the
SBCONFIG_CONFIG_PORTis cast to a number, so as not to trip on any explicit (===) equality tests further down the code.How to test
Not sure, I haven't looked at the test suit in the repo sorry :(
No, as it resembles expected behaviour and was rarely encountered.
No, as it resembles expected behaviour and was rarely encountered.