Bug #2933: The use of "&&" prevent Rudder to generate promises if not escaped, then a test in the techniques is needed - Rudder - Issue Tracker

Custom queries

8.1 beta
Bugs triage
My TR
Need technical review
Open bugs (all)
Open bugs (UI - UX)
Open UX defects (all)
Opened by users

Actions

Copy link

Bug #2933

closed

The use of "&&" prevent Rudder to generate promises if not escaped, then a test in the techniques is needed

Added by Nicolas PERRON over 11 years ago. Updated about 9 years ago.

Status:

Released

Priority:

Assignee:

Nicolas PERRON

Category:

Packaging

Target version:

2.4.0~rc1

Pull Request:

Severity:

UX impact:

User visibility:

Effort required:

Priority:

Name check:

Fix check:

Regression:

Description

We should check that no "&&" not escaped are in the rudder-techniques repository to avoid cases where promises can't be generated by Rudder.

Related issues 1 (0 open — 1 closed)

Related to Rudder - Bug #5283: Unhelpful feedback with special string template characters

Resolved

Actions

Issue # Delay: days Cancel

History
Notes
Property changes
Associated revisions

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 11 years ago

In some cases, the use of "&&" without escapement is acceptable:

In the initial promises as there is no use of StringTemplate
StringTemplate could be using && to surround its variables which is require to not let whitespaces between && and variable.

A good test could be to check that no whitespace exist between "&&" and the variable into techniques folder.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 11 years ago

The test should check that no "&" or "&&" exist surrounded by whitespace but not only. Some typo could lead to:

"sometext\&&sometext", "sometext&\&sometext", " &\&sometext", "sometext&\& " or " &\&sometext"
" \&sometext", "sometext& ", "sometext\&" " &sometext"
"sometext&& " or " &&sometext"

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 11 years ago

Status changed from New to Pending technical review
% Done changed from 0 to 100

The commit associated handle the simplest cases but it should be sufficient.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 11 years ago

Status changed from Pending technical review to Discussion

Nicolas PERRON wrote:

The commit associated handle the simplest cases but it should be sufficient.

This looks OK but I don't understand why you have commented out the REPOSITORY_PATH definition. This is clearly not related to this bug.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 11 years ago

Status changed from Discussion to In progress
% Done changed from 100 to 90

Jonathan CLARKE wrote:

Nicolas PERRON wrote:

The commit associated handle the simplest cases but it should be sufficient.

This looks OK but I don't understand why you have commented out the REPOSITORY_PATH definition. This is clearly not related to this bug.

You're right, It's a mistake or I've forgotten to remove this comment before to commit but it must be undone.

Actions

Copy link