-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
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
✨ Allow to modify source_url property in Loaf script attributions #3325
Merged
thomas-lebeau
merged 7 commits into
main
from
thomas.lebeau/limit-modifications-support-array
Feb 7, 2025
+71
−44
Merged
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5bf5744
👷 add partial support for array in limitModification
thomas-lebeau db7d41f
✨ Allow to modify source_url property in Loaf script attributions
thomas-lebeau cd90c45
✨ Allow to modify invoker property in Loaf script attributions
thomas-lebeau 74bbcfc
👌 improve path segments spliting
thomas-lebeau b0c7cd9
👌 better algorithm
thomas-lebeau 5098086
👌 PR review suggestion
thomas-lebeau 7660dcd
👌 sync rum-event-format
thomas-lebeau File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't validate here that the length matches; is that expected? I may be misreading the code, but it seems like this will allow people to remove items from the array while still passing the
isValidType()
check; the result looks like it would be that you'd getundefined
for some elements in the output array. That may be OK, but I just wanted to make sure it was intentional. (Or that it's handled somehow and I'm just missing it.)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're right, I haven't consider this. Actually, it also means that every property of the clone is a valid type. If only some are, none will be copied to the original object.
I've come up with a better algorithm, that should be resilient to such inconsistencies in the clone: traverse both, the object and the clone recursively at the same time, up to the end of the path where I can check the path individually.
At the end, I think the code is simpler and even more efficient as we now do the get and set traversal at once
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I really like the final result! Nicely done.