Make isFQDN more strict - #1180

Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed

Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom
CristhianMotoche:master

Conversation

@CristhianMotoche

@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche commented Oct 26, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello!

I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.

Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂

profnandaa
profnandaa reviewed Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
{ allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
],
valid: [
'example.0',

@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...

@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...

In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.

I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.

Other options?

The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:

One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:

Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.

Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.

Does it make sense?

Note:

I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?

@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!

/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.

@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.
After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.

@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2020
Closed
@profnandaaprofnandaa mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2020
Closed
ezkemboi
ezkemboi approved these changes Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes

@ezkemboiezkemboi left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.
cc. @profnandaa.

@profnandaa

profnandaa commented Oct 5, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!

@profnandaaprofnandaa added the mc-to-land Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing. label Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche

CristhianMotoche commented Oct 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.

@CristhianMotoche

CristhianMotoche commented Oct 9, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2020
Merged
3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
Make isFQDN more strict - #1180
Closed
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Closed
Make isFQDN more strict#1180
CristhianMotoche wants to merge 1 commit into
validatorjs:masterfrom 
CristhianMotoche:master
Conversation
@CristhianMotoche
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making isFQDN more strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂
profnandaa
profnandaa
reviewed
Oct 26, 2019
View reviewed changes
Comment threadtest/validators.js
 { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false },
 ],
 valid: [
 'example.0',
@profnandaaprofnandaaOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotocheOct 26, 2019

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
@profnandaaprofnandaaSep 20, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Makes sense. Really sorry for the long delay on this one, can't believe it has almost been a year!
/cc. @tux-tn@ezkemboi -- could you please have a look at this and advise.
@ezkemboiezkemboiSep 28, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It makes sense to me @profnandaa.

After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
@AubreyHewesAubreyHewes
mentioned this pull request
Feb 11, 2020
 Closed

@profnandaaprofnandaa
mentioned this pull request
Jun 13, 2020
 Closed

ezkemboi
ezkemboi
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@ezkemboiezkemboi
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

cc. @profnandaa.
@profnandaa
profnandaa
commented
Oct 5, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks!
@profnandaaprofnandaa
added
the 
mc-to-land
Just merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.
label
Oct 5, 2020
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today.
@CristhianMotoche
CristhianMotoche
commented
Oct 9, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.
@CristhianMotocheCristhianMotoche
mentioned this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
 Merged

3 tasks
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@profnandaaprofnandaaprofnandaa left review comments
@ezkemboiezkemboiezkemboi approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels

mc-to-landJust merge-conflict standing between the PR and landing.needs-more-review

Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@CristhianMotoche@profnandaa@ezkemboi