-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.4k
Fix IndexOutOfRangeException when an added/removed attribute spans a buffer size boundary #50110
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
Merged
mkArtakMSFT
merged 3 commits into
release/8.0
from
stevesa/fix-attributes-at-buffer-boundaries
Aug 22, 2023
Merged
Fix IndexOutOfRangeException when an added/removed attribute spans a buffer size boundary #50110
mkArtakMSFT
merged 3 commits into
release/8.0
from
stevesa/fix-attributes-at-buffer-boundaries
Aug 22, 2023
Conversation
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
…buffer size boundary
Assert.Equal("myattribute_final", entry.RemovedAttributeName); | ||
}); | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Both of these new unit tests do fail with IndexOutOfRangeException
without the fix, and of course pass with the fix.
campersau
reviewed
Aug 16, 2023
src/Components/Components/src/RenderTree/RenderTreeDiffBuilder.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
JamesNK
reviewed
Aug 16, 2023
src/Components/Components/src/RenderTree/RenderTreeDiffBuilder.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: campersau <buchholz.bastian@googlemail.com>
There's nothing in the syntax to indicate whether NoSuchAttributeFrame would be copied or not
javiercn
approved these changes
Aug 22, 2023
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.
NOTE: I'm not actually proposing this for servicing right now, because it doesn't look like there would be a major benefit from including it in RC1, and including it in RC2 would be perfectly sufficient. However I'm writing up the ask mode template anyway just in case people disagree.
Extremely rarely, component rendering could cause IndexOutOfRangeException.
Description
If a component rendered a very specific number of frames, and then updated to render exactly one more frame, and that new frame was an attribute, and it was the last frame in the component, the diffing system would throw
IndexOutOfRangeException
. This was due to a bug in checking whether there are more attributes to process.Fixes #49192
Customer Impact
Fairly low, because it's really hard to reproduce this, even if you're doing so on purpose. However, total correctness of the Blazor renderer is a high priority for us, and we do not want any edge cases where it can fail.
In the event that the issue does occur, it would behave like an unhandled exception from application code:
Regression?
[If yes, specify the version the behavior has regressed from]
Risk
Low because the code change is small enough (4 lines) to reason clearly that it only makes a difference in the case where it would have failed before. The updated boundary condition is simple to understand.
Verification
Packaging changes reviewed?