Rename block_id to security_response_id & Release v1.30.0#473
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Update validator action schema expectations to security_response_id
The commit changed every serialized blocking action to emit security_response_id, but the validator scenario still asserts on the old block_id field. Running the validator will now fail because the produced JSON no longer contains block_id. The expectation should be migrated to security_response_id to match the new API.
Rename block_id expectation in rule filter validator test
This validator test still expects block_id in the action parameters. After this commit all blocking actions emit a security_response_id field instead, so the validator run will report a mismatch. Update the test to check for security_response_id to keep the suite aligned with the new field name.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
38d72b1 to
33b856a
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## libddwaf-1.30.0 #473 +/- ##
===================================================
+ Coverage 85.23% 85.28% +0.05%
===================================================
Files 186 186
Lines 9387 8959 -428
Branches 4170 4131 -39
===================================================
- Hits 8001 7641 -360
+ Misses 552 501 -51
+ Partials 834 817 -17
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Artifact Size Comparison 📦
|
Benchmarks clangBenchmark execution time: 2025-10-28 09:47:40 Comparing candidate commit 33b856a in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 1 metrics, 0 unstable metrics. |
Benchmarks gccBenchmark execution time: 2025-10-28 09:47:44 Comparing candidate commit 33b856a in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 1 metrics, 0 unstable metrics. |
4 participants
This PR simply renames
block_idtosecurity_response_idand prepares a new minor release. The reason for a minor rather than a patch is to signify a potentially breaking change in the interface.