Merged
Conversation
Owner
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We will need to make this configurable. The issue is that while this is the correct behavior (in terms of the assertion/check), there is existing code which is using duplicate node names already, and this fix will break that code.
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
While using RubyTree at work I noticed that the node names, though the documentation states "The node name is expected to be unique within the tree.", are not unique if you add an already added node/name to another child. There are several ways to fix this, the easiest implementation, is to check if the tree, where the child is added too, already contains a node with this name.
Because I'm not allowed to spend too much worktime on open source projects I stuck with the simple implementation I mentioned and hope that this is of any use to you anyway. While testing, the "add node to self as child" case was fixed too so I changed the test likewise.
Adding a node might still be exploitable by something like this, I hope you get the idea, could happen anytime you add a node or merge two trees:
Thanks a lot for RubyTree and best regards, ysf :)