Skip to content

sanitizing bug #22

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
benbp merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2015
Merged

sanitizing bug #22

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 6 additions & 3 deletions lib/jobs/ipmi-sdr-alert-job.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -67,19 +67,22 @@ function ipmiSdrPollerAlertJobFactory(
alertObj.reading = val;
alertObj.inCondition = true;
alertObj.node = data.node;
conf.inCondition[val['Sensor Id'].replace(/\./ig, '_')] = true;
conf.inCondition[val['Sensor Id']] = true;
results.push(alertObj);

} else if (val.Status === 'ok' && conf.inCondition[val['Sensor Id']]) {
alertObj = _.omit(data, 'sdr');
alertObj.reading = val;
alertObj.inCondition = false;
alertObj.node = data.node;
conf.inCondition[val['Sensor Id'].replace(/\./ig, '_')] = false;

conf.inCondition[val['Sensor Id']] = false;
results.push(alertObj);
}
});

conf.inCondition = _.transform(conf.inCondition, function(result, val, key) {
result[key.replace(/\./ig, '_')] = val;
Copy link
Contributor

@benbp benbp Oct 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't this mean that we'll end up with redundant un-sanitized keys in the object? Because we're adding a new key but not deleting the old, un-sanitized one. Seems like we would want to start with an empty accumulator object rather than the existing conf.inCondition one (unless I'm reading this wrong).

Copy link
Contributor

@jfrey jfrey Oct 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I think you're right. I think it might be worth extracting this transform into a function that can be tested separately.

@VulpesArtificem

Copy link
Contributor

@benbp benbp Oct 2, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

He's right, I misunderstood _.transform().

});
return [alerts, waterline.workitems.update({ id: data.workItemId }, { config: conf })];
})
.spread(function(alerts) {
Expand Down