Skip to content

Conversation

erik-krogh
Copy link
Contributor

@erik-krogh erik-krogh commented Feb 11, 2021

An evaluation looks OK.
There is a slight hint of a performance regression.
The evaluation ran on CommandInjection.ql, FileAccessToHttp.ql, InsecureDownload.ql, HttpToFileAccess.ql, and RequestForgery.ql.

@erik-krogh erik-krogh added the Awaiting evaluation Do not merge yet, this PR is waiting for an evaluation to finish label Feb 11, 2021
@erik-krogh erik-krogh removed the Awaiting evaluation Do not merge yet, this PR is waiting for an evaluation to finish label Feb 12, 2021
@erik-krogh erik-krogh marked this pull request as ready for review February 12, 2021 12:23
@erik-krogh erik-krogh requested a review from a team as a code owner February 12, 2021 12:23
Copy link
Contributor

@esbena esbena left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit.
If you worry about the performance, could you perhaps check if the new Range-member actually changes any existing DIL significantly?

Co-authored-by: Esben Sparre Andreasen <esbena@github.com>
@erik-krogh
Copy link
Contributor Author

If you worry about the performance, could you perhaps check if the new Range-member actually changes any existing DIL significantly?

It doesn't make any significant change in the DIL. It just adds some new predicates and a new case to ClientRequests::ClientRequest::Range#class#ff.

@codeql-ci codeql-ci merged commit 9b8d94d into github:main Feb 15, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants