Merged
Conversation
The #922 triggered some AI checks: https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/security/code-scanning/7 I don't think this is a problem irl, due to code in `unixfs/mod/dagmodifier.go` being related to single block (which have limits), but adding this extra check there just in case and to avoid linters bringing this up in the future.
2 tasks
gammazero
approved these changes
May 29, 2025
Contributor
|
@lidel This is probably a good thing to have in case some day the limits around a single raw block disappear. ...and to stop linters from pestering us. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The #922 triggered some AI checks:
https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/security/code-scanning/7
I don't think this is a problem irl, due to code in
unixfs/mod/dagmodifier.gobeing related to singlerawblock (which has limits), but adding this extra check there just in case and to avoid linters bringing this up in the future.@ipfs/kubo-maintainers – thoughts?