bugfix(SRI): Ensure that we are hashing digested file content #3404
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
|
Unfortunately this is going to digest the contents twice. Can you please digest it only once and pass it around accordingly? Thank you. |
|
Also, please include a test, so we avoid doing the same mistake in the future. Thank you! |
…file a single time. Add test that verifies integrity hash is correctly generated
|
@josevalim You're right, I've updated the PR to reflect the requested changes. |
|
I also ran the formatter so there might be some extra changes that are reflected. |
|
Thank you! But please do not format and change code the next time around, as it makes it really hard to review PRs, backport the code, etc. |
|
❤️ 💚 💙 💛 💜 |
josevalim
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2019
Signed-off-by: José Valim <jose.valim@plataformatec.com.br>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR fixes the issues I brought up in #3394. I've tested this fix in production on our project and it does work as originally intended. It is slightly inefficient since we are digesting the file twice, we could improve that but I will leave for comment.