Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 59: Inefficient regular expression #10
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Potential fix for https://github.com/Git-Hub-Chris/MicrosoftVsCode/security/code-scanning/59
The fix involves rewriting the ambiguous and potentially catastrophic part of the regex to ensure each iteration of the repetition "owns" its whitespace and arrow parts in an unambiguous way. Specifically:
(?:\s+->\s+(?<file2>.*))*so the whitespace around the->cannot be confused with the trailing whitespace in its ownfilecapture (i.e.,.*?will try to consume whitespace, which can be then grabbed in the following repetition)..*?, use something that will not overlap with the separator: for example, capture everything up to the->or the end of line. This can be accomplished with a negated lookahead or by using a character class to exclude the separator sequence.[^\s]or([^\r\n]|(?!\s+->))type approach to avoid ambiguity, but here we can use a character class that matches anything except the start of a separator, or a "greedy but up-to" match.For Git diff files, filenames in commit messages do not contain literal tabs or
->, so matching up to the separator is safe.Thus, for each "file" in the arrow-separated chain, we match any text up to (but not including) the next separator, replacing
.*?with something like[^\r\n]+?(stopping at separator), or a lazy match up to lookahead for\s+->or end of string.So, rewrite as:
[^\r\n]+?(?<file2>[^\r\n]+?)Concrete edit:
Replace this (line 70):
with:
Now, each file is matched up to the next separator or end of line, never consuming separator whitespace in ambiguous ways.
No new imports or utility methods are needed.
Suggested fixes powered by Copilot Autofix. Review carefully before merging.