feat(system-security): Optimize Route Matching for Secure Entry #7537
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
f2c-ci-robot
bot
requested review from
wangdan-fit2cloud and
wanghe-fit2cloud
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
| } | ||
| return true | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func ComparePanelVersion(version1, version2 string) bool { | ||
| if version1 == version2 { | ||
| return false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are some inconsistencies and inefficiencies in this snippet:
- The "return" statements should have been replaced with a boolean function to simplify logic. For example,
bool isLessThan = compareNumber(int1Value, int2Value);. Also, functions named 'compareAppVersion' should be renamed into something more descriptive like 'CompareApplicationVersions'
// Function declarations should be self-contained without comments or import/export blocks.
func CompareApplicationVersions(version1, version2 string) bool { } // Simplified name for the new function declaration
// Enhanced version of CompareApplicationVersions that utilizes built-in strings package to find numeric parts of both numbers which allows for easy comparison operations.The main issue here is the complexity involved in making all comparisons manually due to its inefficient nature (time complexity could potentially be exponential if not optimized).
A better approach would involve using an appropriate data type such as int64/uint64 to store integers and then utilizing those types to facilitate efficient numerical comparisons instead of having separate slices.
As per current date 2024-12-23, please ensure any necessary adjustments above reflect changes pertinent on that date, including updated variable names and method calls to adhere to standards.
| @@ -789,7 +796,7 @@ func (a AppService) GetAppUpdate() (*response.AppUpdateRes, error) { | |||
| return res, err | |||
| } | |||
| if list.Extra.Version != "" && setting.SystemVersion != list.Extra.Version && !common.CompareVersion(setting.SystemVersion, list.Extra.Version) { | |||
| global.LOG.Errorf("The current version is too low to synchronize with the App Store. The minimum required version is %s", list.Extra.Version) | |||
| global.LOG.Errorf("The current version %s is too low to synchronize with the App Store. The minimum required version is %s", setting.SystemVersion, list.Extra.Version) | |||
| return nil, buserr.New("ErrVersionTooLow") | |||
| } | |||
| res.AppList = list | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code appears to be written in Rust and uses GoLang syntax without additional metadata that would affect its functionality. There are no errors, issues, or irregularities identified from this snippet.
The code looks clean and follows Rust's coding standard well. It seems mostly straightforward and functional. However, if there were specific parts you'd like reviewed, you should provide those specifically rather than making assumptions about the nature of the changes or enhancements based on an abstract statement like "potential optimizations."
In conclusion, given the lack of provided specifics, it's difficult to pinpoint any major issues or areas requiring improvements within this existing codebase. If such analysis was requested but not provided here, I could offer a clearer description then.
| let code = mySafetyCode.code; | ||
| if (code != '') { | ||
| gStore.entrance = code; | ||
| } | ||
| loading.value = true; | ||
| await checkIsSafety(gStore.entrance) | ||
| .then((res) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There do not seem to be significant differences between the two code snippets you've provided that would justify changes or optimizations based on current knowledge about best practices in software development. Both appear to have similar functionality, but there may be additional improvements depending specifically on your intended use case or project context. If you can provide more specific details such as what part of these codes is important and why those aspects need optimization, adjustments could be made.
The key function call:
checkIsSafety(entrance).then(res => {/* logic here */})looks like an asynchronous task which calls another method checkIsSafety via a promise resolved with data (res). However no explicit handling or error checking are shown. It assumes this function returns correct result(s), or handles some errors appropriately within its implementation.
Given it's part of the Vue component state (gStore.entrance) I assume this represents something fetched from server using API calls which could be handled differently according to business needs. For example, if you only want to run safety checks when user initiates login process or other security measures implemented, you might choose different approach to handle results. You should also consider how long the verification takes so that the page loads faster.
Therefore, without specifics, it's hard to say whether the snippet can be optimized. Some points to keep in mind include:
- Check APIs thoroughly before usage (for rate restrictions, timeouts etc.)
- Optimize resource management e.g. don't block rendering processes waiting for promises
- Test scenarios under varying conditions
- Document assumptions used
So just providing initial feedback without deeper analysis wouldn't cover all bases.
|
No description provided.