Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

bug: fix slice init length #16708

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

bug: fix slice init length #16708

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

longhutianjie
Copy link

Description

fix slice init length

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Sep 4, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Sep 4, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v21.0.0 milestone Sep 4, 2024
GrahamCampbell
GrahamCampbell suggested changes Sep 4, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@GrahamCampbell GrahamCampbell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't this also highlight that there's insufficient test coverage here?

@deepthi
Copy link
Member

deepthi commented Sep 4, 2024

Doesn't this also highlight that there's insufficient test coverage here?

What would a unit test for this look like?
An alternative idea is to see if we can lint for such usages. No idea whether golangci-lint (which is what we use) has a rule that would work for this.

@deepthi deepthi added Type: Internal Cleanup Component: General Changes throughout the code base and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Sep 4, 2024
@deepthi
Copy link
Member

deepthi commented Sep 4, 2024

I noticed a minute too late that the DCO check is failing. @longhutianjie you will need to fix that. The current CI workflows are going to be a waste, they will run again once you push a commit to fix the DCO aka sign-off.

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 4, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.93%. Comparing base (1ed18d0) to head (d8be0f9).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/topo/srv_keyspace.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/fakerpcvtgateconn/conn.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
...ablet/tabletmanager/vreplication/vcopier_atomic.go 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #16708   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   68.93%   68.93%           
=======================================
  Files        1565     1565           
  Lines      201682   201682           
=======================================
  Hits       139020   139020           
  Misses      62662    62662

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@longhutianjie
bug: fix slice init length
eb47ce5 
Signed-off-by: longhutianjie <[email protected]>
@longhutianjie
Copy link
Author

I noticed a minute too late that the DCO check is failing. @longhutianjie you will need to fix that. The current CI workflows are going to be a waste, they will run again once you push a commit to fix the DCO aka sign-off.

Thanks. Modified

image

@longhutianjie
Copy link
Author

Doesn't this also highlight that there's insufficient test coverage here?

What would a unit test for this look like? An alternative idea is to see if we can lint for such usages. No idea whether golangci-lint (which is what we use) has a rule that would work for this.

Doesn't this also highlight that there's insufficient test coverage here?

What would a unit test for this look like? An alternative idea is to see if we can lint for such usages. No idea whether golangci-lint (which is what we use) has a rule that would work for this.

Perhaps there is no need to do anything, as some developers are working on adding this detection to the Go toolchain. If everything goes smoothly, we only need to update the Go version and use Go vet in the future.

Thanks for your approved.

This was referenced Sep 9, 2024
Merged
Merged
This was referenced Sep 9, 2024
Merged
Closed
Closed
Closed
Merged
Merged
Closed
Merged
@Sajjon
Copy link

Sajjon commented Sep 9, 2024

@GrahamCampbell @deepthi

Caution

GH user longhutianjie is performing a supply chain attack!
🚫 BLOCK user immediatly and report him to Github 🚫

The first step is getting rid of "first time contributor" status.

The user has manually added the message "Signed-off-by: " to make the commit
look more trust worthy. User has opened similar PRs in all these other
repos in within the same hour:

Furthermore I'm pretty sure this is the same person or group as github.com/vivoxfold3,
who tried performing the attack against these repos, with the exact same style:
Manually adding the message "Signed-off-by: " and making trivial contributions
to many crypto libs within the same hour:

@deepthi deepthi closed this Sep 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@GrahamCampbell GrahamCampbell GrahamCampbell requested changes

@deepthi deepthi deepthi approved these changes

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps Awaiting requested review from rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps is a code owner

@mattlord mattlord Awaiting requested review from mattlord mattlord is a code owner

@harshit-gangal harshit-gangal Awaiting requested review from harshit-gangal harshit-gangal is a code owner

@systay systay Awaiting requested review from systay systay is a code owner

@frouioui frouioui Awaiting requested review from frouioui frouioui is a code owner

@GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 Awaiting requested review from GuptaManan100 GuptaManan100 is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: General Changes throughout the code base Type: Internal Cleanup
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v21.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@longhutianjie @deepthi @Sajjon @GrahamCampbell