Fix parsing of version number from binary version string #939
Conversation
This file contains 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
m-1-k-3
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
Bug fix
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
For a binary version string like "openssl:openssl:1.0.1j", current code returns "openssl" for the version instead of "1.0.1j", causing false positives to be returned.
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)? If possible add a screenshot.
Updated code returns the last field of the binary version string, which should be the correct version number.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
I don't believe so.
Other information:
I did a quick test to verify this works for the openssl example mentioned above, but did not perform any further testing. Also not sure if a similar change might be necessary for BIN_NAME (should it always be the first field? or should it be the second to last field in the case where there are 3+ fields?).