-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.9k
optimize: optimize fury deserialization #7498
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
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 2.x #7498 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 60.34% 60.37% +0.03%
Complexity 658 658
============================================
Files 1284 1284
Lines 48465 48465
Branches 5694 5694
============================================
+ Hits 29247 29262 +15
+ Misses 16600 16586 -14
+ Partials 2618 2617 -1
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
slievrly
left a comment
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.
LGTM
| SerializerSecurityRegistry.getAllowClassPattern().contains(className)); | ||
| AllowListChecker checker = new AllowListChecker(AllowListChecker.CheckLevel.STRICT); | ||
| f.getClassResolver().setClassChecker(checker); | ||
| checker.allowClasses(SerializerSecurityRegistry.getAllowClassPattern()); |
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.
Would it be possible to add some tests for this change? The existing test coverage missed the fact there was a bug and no new tests were added in the PR.
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did
Fixed the class name whitelist check issue in fury deserialization
Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)?
Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it
Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews