Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Upgrade libddwaf to 1.25.1 - #175
Conversation
695f1ad to
9c93451Comparebacc163 to
17e26cfCompareCodecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #175 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 58.55% 56.93% -1.63% - Complexity 134 175 +41
============================================
Files 34 34 Lines 3458 3548 +90 Branches 780 796 +16 ============================================
- Hits 2025 2020 -5 - Misses 900 975 +75 - Partials 533 553 +20
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
b53e6c6 to
17e26cfCompareUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
04030c5 to
c74e9d1Compare| if (duration_obj != NULL && duration_obj->type == DDWAF_OBJ_UNSIGNED) { | ||
| duration = (jlong) ddwaf_object_get_unsigned(duration_obj); | ||
| } | ||
| metrics_update_checked(env, metrics_obj, 0, duration); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it make sense to update the metrics when we can´t parse the duration received? (maybe it's better to include it inside the if statement)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i feel like this is okay, seeing how metrics_update_checked was called before when we were not sure if the attribute was there or not, but i can make another PR to shove it in the if
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(sorry had auto merge on thinking there was no more issue 😓 )
This reverts commit 8516bc9.
Upgrades libddwaf to 1.25.1, this version removes the ddwaf_result object and advises the use of ddwaf_object
https://github.com/DataDog/libddwaf/blob/master/UPGRADING.md#upgrading-from-124x-to-1250