Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 4: Inefficient regular expression#39
Merged
Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 4: Inefficient regular expression#39
Conversation
…ession Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
…expression' Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <62310815+github-advanced-security[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
ffbdf39 to
0193178
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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/TrixtyAI/ide/security/code-scanning/4
The best fix is to make the repeated inner alternatives mutually exclusive, so the engine has far fewer backtracking choices while matching bold markdown content.
In
apps/desktop/src/addons/builtin.language.markdown/index.ts, update the strong-emphasis**...**regex on line 85:\*\*([^\\*]|@escapes|\*(?!\*))+\*\*\*\*(?:@escapes|[^\\*]|\*(?!\*))+\*\*Why this works:
@escapesfirst and making the group non-capturing reduces ambiguity when a backslash introduces an escape sequence.\/*chars, and single*not followed by*.(?:...)avoids unnecessary capture bookkeeping.No imports, new methods, or dependencies are needed.
Suggested fixes powered by Copilot Autofix. Review carefully before merging.