unified: error on truncated hunk bodies instead of silent termination#61
Merged
unified: error on truncated hunk bodies instead of silent termination#61
Conversation
iter_hunks used `iter_lines.next()?` inside the per-hunk body loop.
When a hunk header declared more orig/mod lines than the input
provided, the `?` propagated the inner None as a None from the
from_fn closure — which terminated iteration without recording the
partial hunk and without returning an error. Callers couldn't tell
"valid empty input" from "truncated patch", and miscounted ranges
upstream were silently swallowed.
Replace the `?` with an explicit None match that returns
PatchSyntax("Truncated hunk body"). Two regression tests cover
both forms: a partial body and an EOF immediately after the
header.
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
iter_hunks used
iter_lines.next()?inside the per-hunk body loop. When a hunk header declared more orig/mod lines than the input provided, the?propagated the inner None as a None from the from_fn closure — which terminated iteration without recording the partial hunk and without returning an error. Callers couldn't tell "valid empty input" from "truncated patch", and miscounted ranges upstream were silently swallowed.Replace the
?with an explicit None match that returns PatchSyntax("Truncated hunk body"). Two regression tests cover both forms: a partial body and an EOF immediately after the header.