-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 130
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
Concerns about the encrypted? method #316
Comments
Yeah I'm not sure how you would get two |
@kenyon perfect, thanks for reviewing my concern! I will proceed to close this question (issue). |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hey contributors,
CC @bastelfreak @kenyon
A few days ago one of my colleagues sent me this link that explains the REGEX "Non-greedy matching" with Ruby.
Basically, it explains why in some cases it's useful to use the
*?
to avoid as many occurrences as possible with the matches. This brings us to a PR I sent a couple of weeks ago #313I have a concern about the Pull Request I sent before and I would like to know what you all think?
Questions
hiera-eyaml
? -- Here is a Rubular link where I have my cases: https://rubular.com/r/wpG9IjlgA4XiVg Remove the?
from the REGEX above and it will match the whole test string.features/decrypts.feature
file, added a new scenario with:Note the extra
[..]
block on the string. According to my tests, it fails with both scenarios (with and without the?
mark in the REGEX:/.*ENC\[.*?\]/
).Do you think this is a real concern? Based on my test it seems that if the string is an invalid one (due to format) the decryption process will not work anyways. But could we have these cases in real life?
If there is nothing to worry about, feel free to close this issue :)
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: