Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
Add function to delete global application commands
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Nicky <111157596+xNickyDev@users.noreply.github.com>
Added $translateText and $chalkLog
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
| const FunctionCategoryRegex = /\r?\n(.*)(category: "\$?(\w+)"),?/m; | ||
| const ArgEnumRegex = /(?:enum: +(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t ]?(\w+))/gim; | ||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((\w+|ArgType.(\w+)),?)+\]),/im; | ||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im; |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Inefficient regular expression
Show autofix suggestionHide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI over 1 year ago
To fix the issue, we need to rewrite the OutputRegex regular expression to eliminate ambiguity and nested quantifiers that can lead to exponential backtracking. Specifically:
- Replace ambiguous patterns like
\w+andarray(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?with more precise and non-overlapping patterns. - Use atomic grouping or possessive quantifiers where appropriate to prevent backtracking.
- Ensure the rewritten regular expression maintains the same functionality as the original.
The changes will be applied to the OutputRegex definition on line 13.
| @@ -12,3 +12,3 @@ | ||
| constArgEnumRegex=/(?:enum:+(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t]?(\w+))/gim; | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im; | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(?:<[\w.]+>)?\([\w]*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+|\[(?:array(?:<[\w.]+>)?\([\w]*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+)(?:,(?:array(?:<[\w.]+>)?\([\w]*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+))*\]),/im; | ||
| functiongetOutputValues(fn,txt,enums){ |
| const FunctionCategoryRegex = /\r?\n(.*)(category: "\$?(\w+)"),?/m; | ||
| const ArgEnumRegex = /(?:enum: +(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t ]?(\w+))/gim; | ||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((\w+|ArgType.(\w+)),?)+\]),/im; | ||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im; |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Inefficient regular expression
Show autofix suggestionHide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI over 1 year ago
To fix the issue, we need to rewrite the OutputRegex regular expression to eliminate ambiguities and nested quantifiers that can cause exponential backtracking. Specifically:
- Replace ambiguous patterns like
\w+andArgType\.\w+with more specific and non-overlapping patterns. - Use atomic grouping or possessive quantifiers (if supported) to prevent backtracking.
- Simplify the regex structure where possible to reduce complexity.
The updated regex will ensure that the matching process is linear in complexity, even for edge cases.
| @@ -12,3 +12,3 @@ | ||
| constArgEnumRegex=/(?:enum:+(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t]?(\w+))/gim; | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im; | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType\.(\w+)|\[((?:array(?:<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+)(?:,?))*\]),/im; | ||
| functiongetOutputValues(fn,txt,enums){ |
| @@ -12,10 +12,10 @@ | |||
| const FunctionNameRegex = /(name: "\$?(\w+)"),?/m | |||
| const FunctionCategoryRegex = /\r?\n(.*)(category: "\$?(\w+)"),?/m | |||
| const ArgEnumRegex = /(?:enum: +(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t ]?(\w+))/gim | |||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((\w+|ArgType.(\w+)),?)+\]),/im | |||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Inefficient regular expression
Show autofix suggestionHide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI over 1 year ago
To fix the issue, we need to rewrite the OutputRegex regular expression to eliminate ambiguity and reduce the potential for exponential backtracking. Specifically:
- Replace ambiguous sub-expressions like
\w+with more specific patterns that do not overlap with other alternatives. - Use atomic grouping (
(?>...)) or possessive quantifiers (if supported) to prevent backtracking where possible. - Simplify the regex by breaking it into smaller, more manageable parts if necessary.
The updated regex will ensure that the matching process is efficient and avoids exponential time complexity.
| @@ -14,3 +14,3 @@ | ||
| constArgEnumRegex=/(?:enum:+(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t]?(\w+))/gim | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType\.(\w+)|\[((?:array(?:<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|ArgType\.\w+)(?:,(?:array(?:<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|ArgType\.\w+))*)\]),/im | ||
| @@ -12,10 +12,10 @@ | |||
| const FunctionNameRegex = /(name: "\$?(\w+)"),?/m | |||
| const FunctionCategoryRegex = /\r?\n(.*)(category: "\$?(\w+)"),?/m | |||
| const ArgEnumRegex = /(?:enum: +(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t ]?(\w+))/gim | |||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((\w+|ArgType.(\w+)),?)+\]),/im | |||
| const OutputRegex = /output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im | |||
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Inefficient regular expression
Show autofix suggestionHide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI over 1 year ago
To fix the issue, we need to rewrite the OutputRegex regular expression to remove ambiguity and reduce the risk of catastrophic backtracking. Specifically:
- Replace ambiguous patterns like
\w+with more specific patterns that match the expected input. - Simplify nested alternations and repetitions to make the regex more efficient.
- Ensure that the regex still matches the intended patterns without introducing new bugs.
The updated regex will explicitly handle the expected cases without relying on overly broad patterns like \w+. This change will be made directly in the definition of OutputRegex on line 15.
| @@ -14,3 +14,3 @@ | ||
| constArgEnumRegex=/(?:enum:+(\w+),?|Arg\.(?:\w+)Enum\([\r\n\t]?(\w+))/gim | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|(\w+)|ArgType.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|\w+|ArgType\.\w+),?)+\]),/im | ||
| constOutputRegex=/output:(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\((\w+)?\)|ArgType\.(\w+)|\[((array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|ArgType\.\w+)(?:,\s*(array(<[A-Za-z.]+>)?\(\w*\)|ArgType\.\w+))*)\]),/im | ||
No description provided.