Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

STUTL-37: Add escapeCqlValueAllowAsterisk to only escape " \ ^ ? and not escape *. #73

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Dmytro-Melnyshyn
Copy link

@Dmytro-Melnyshyn Dmytro-Melnyshyn commented Jul 24, 2023

Description

The asterisk has recently been escaped in escapeCqlValue #69.
The suggested solution is to create a separate #73 function to support the asterisk.

Related PRs

stripes-smart-components/pull/1382

Issue

STUTL-37

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 24, 2023

Jest Unit Test Statistics

47 tests  +4   47 ✔️ +4   2s ⏱️ ±0s
  9 suites +1     0 💤 ±0 
  1 files   ±0     0 ±0 

Results for commit 62ecedd. ± Comparison against base commit 2a77364.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 24, 2023

BigTest Unit Test Statistics

0 tests  ±0   0 ✔️ ±0   0s ⏱️ ±0s
0 suites ±0   0 💤 ±0 
0 files   ±0   0 ±0 

Results for commit 62ecedd. ± Comparison against base commit 2a77364.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Jul 24, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

100.0% 100.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

zburke added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2023
This reverts commit 2a77364.

This appears to be a likely cause of > 150 e2e test failures when tests
rely on an asterisk as part of a wildcard search. We may eventually
decide to keep this work, alongside a function that permits the
asterisk, as outlined in STUTL-37 / PR #73, but we'll want to rearrange the
order of operations (implement that function, then convert existing
search code to use that function, and only then implement the breaking
change outlined in STUTL-33).
@zburke
Copy link
Member

zburke commented Jul 24, 2023

@Dmytro-Melnyshyn , we've reverted #69. Let's see how tests go with that change in place, and then we can decide if/how to proceed with this function.

@zburke
Copy link
Member

zburke commented Aug 4, 2023

STUTL-37 has been closed as "Won't Do".

@zburke zburke closed this Aug 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants