fix(api): skip command key hash generation only if command intent is SETUP #15020
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
sfoster1
approved these changes
Apr 26, 2024
| @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ def hash_protocol_command_params( | |||
| The command hash, if the command is a protocol command. | |||
| `None` if the command is a setup command. | |||
| """ | |||
| if create.intent != CommandIntent.PROTOCOL: | |||
| if create.intent == CommandIntent.SETUP: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sfoster1 this should check for FIXIT commands as well
| @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ def hash_protocol_command_params( | |||
| The command hash, if the command is a protocol command. | |||
| `None` if the command is a setup command. | |||
| """ | |||
| if create.intent != CommandIntent.PROTOCOL: | |||
| if create.intent == CommandIntent.SETUP: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| if create.intent == CommandIntent.SETUP: | |
| if create.intent in [CommandIntent.SETUP, CommandIntent.FIXIT]: |
Carlos-fernandez
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2024
…SETUP (#15020) Fixes RQA-2640 # Overview In a previous PR we made a change from skipping hash generation if `CommandCreate.intent == CommandIntent.SETUP` to if `CommandCreate.intent != CommandIntent.PROTOCOL`. But a command can have a null intent when it is a protocol command; we only expect setup commands to have an explicit SETUP intent. So we were accidentally skipping key hash generation for python protocols, which was resulting in the app not being able to match run commands with their analysis counterparts. This PR fixes that and also adds an integration test so we don't accidentally break this functionality again. # Review requests - want to make sure that there wasn't an important reason for making the original change that I'm missing. But since all tests are still passing I'm guessing there wasn't any functional change that required a change in the original `if` statement. # Risk assessment Low. Bug fix.
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.
Fixes RQA-2640
Overview
In a previous PR we made a change from skipping hash generation if
CommandCreate.intent == CommandIntent.SETUPto ifCommandCreate.intent != CommandIntent.PROTOCOL. But a command can have a null intent when it is a protocol command; we only expect setup commands to have an explicit SETUP intent. So we were accidentally skipping key hash generation for python protocols, which was resulting in the app not being able to match run commands with their analysis counterparts.This PR fixes that and also adds an integration test so we don't accidentally break this functionality again.
Review requests
ifstatement.Risk assessment
Low. Bug fix.