contacts: ensure full deletion in +do-edit #302
Merged
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
This was repeatedly deleting from the outer value, instead of the accumulator intended to replace it. This would result in only a single key being deleted, even if an edit specified multiple keys for deletion.
|
If there's null values in the state, json conversions will also crash: landscape/desk/lib/contacts/json-1.hoon Lines 23 to 26 in eaa5834 |
|
looks good, thanks for finding this. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 was repeatedly deleting from the outer value, instead of the accumulator intended to replace it.
This would result in only a single key being deleted, even if an edit specified multiple keys for deletion.
Probable root-cause of the values that caused the crash described in tloncorp/tlon-apps#4281. I think the change there (on how it does the typechecks) is still good, since the types technically allow the null case, but also don't expect to strictly need it once this is behaving as intended.