Repository navigation
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Closing in favor of #61492, which fixes both |
Contributor
thanks for understanding. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
#61318 switched
doesnt_containto a strictin_array()comparison, but rule parameters always arrive as strings while the validated array can hold integers, floats or booleans.doesnt_contain:1therefore passes for['flags' => [1]]and lets the prohibited value through, and the same input can satisfycontains:1anddoesnt_contain:1at the same time.This casts the scalar values to string before the strict comparison, the same way #61146 did for the
inrule. Exact string matches and the0e123bypass that #61318 closed both keep their current behavior.Fixes #61491.