[fix] Logical mistake while determining local resolvers #1780
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request modifies the Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Resolver
participant NetEnv
participant LocalResolvers
Resolver->>NetEnv: GetLocalNetwork(IP)
alt Network Retrieved Successfully
NetEnv-->>Resolver: Network Object
Resolver->>LocalResolvers: Append Resolver
else Network Not Retrieved
NetEnv-->>Resolver: nil
Resolver->>LocalResolvers: Skip Appending
end
The sequence diagram illustrates the new logic for determining whether a resolver should be added to the local resolvers list based on the successful retrieval of its network information. Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
service/resolver/resolvers.go (1)
513-513: Logical fix approved: Better handling of local network detectionThe change correctly fixes the logical mistake in determining local resolvers by focusing on the presence of a local network rather than the absence of errors. This ensures more reliable detection of local resolvers.
Consider adding a comment explaining the logic for future maintainers:
+ // Include resolvers that are in local networks but not strictly in LAN scope } else if net, _ := netenv.GetLocalNetwork(resolver.Info.IP); net != nil {
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
service/resolver/resolvers.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
service/resolver/resolvers.go (1)
513-513: Verify impact on local resolver detection
Please ensure comprehensive testing of local network resolution scenarios:
- Resolvers in different network scopes (LAN, site-local, etc.)
- Edge cases with temporary network issues
- Transition scenarios when network connectivity changes
Let's analyze the usage of local resolvers in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now generate a final response. The code shows that local resolver detection is well-handled with multiple safeguards:
Local resolver detection is robust and well-tested
The change to GetLocalNetwork usage is safe because:
- The code has a dual-layer detection for local resolvers:
- Primary check:
resolver.Info.IPScope.IsLAN() - Secondary check:
net, _ := netenv.GetLocalNetwork(resolver.Info.IP)
- Primary check:
- Local resolvers are properly categorized and managed in dedicated slices
- The system has comprehensive scope handling with proper fallbacks
- Network scope transitions are handled gracefully through the resolver management system
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze local resolver usage and network scope handling
# Check for local network scope handling
echo "Checking local network scope handling..."
rg -A 5 "GetLocalNetwork|IsLAN|IPScope"
# Check for local resolver usage
echo "Checking local resolver usage..."
rg -A 5 "localResolvers"
# Check for related test cases
echo "Checking related test cases..."
fd -e test.go -e _test.go -x rg -l "TestLocal|TestResolver|TestSetScopedResolvers" {}
Length of output: 51303
It seems to be a logical mistake.
The previously created PR was mistakenly closed by me.
This is a duplicate PR.
Summary by CodeRabbit