-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
routing: extend input name resolution for safer direct route paths #11141
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
🧩 Analysis chain
LGTM! Test setup properly initializes new routing fields.
The initialization correctly sets
plugin_nameto "tail" and explicitly disables alias usage withhas_alias = FLB_FALSE, which aligns with the test scenario.However, verify that if
flb_sds_create("tail")fails (returns NULL), subsequent code handles it gracefully. The test doesn't check for NULL return fromflb_sds_create.🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 339
Length of output: 672
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 3586
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 677
Length of output: 1144
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 267
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 0
Length of output: 2982
Add NULL validation for allocation failures in
setup_conditional_routes.The function makes 7
flb_sds_createcalls (lines 885–886, 893, 900, 907, 914, 921, 928) without checking for NULL returns. This is inconsistent with the validation pattern used elsewhere in the test file (line 229:TEST_CHECK(rule->field != NULL && rule->op != NULL && rule->value != NULL);). If any allocation fails, the function will pass NULL pointers to subsequent operations likecfl_list_add, causing undefined behavior. AddTEST_CHECKassertions to validate all allocations before using them.🤖 Prompt for AI Agents