Skip to content

Conversation

@rbs-afflitto
Copy link
Collaborator

@rbs-afflitto rbs-afflitto commented Oct 3, 2025

  • I have reviewed the OFRAK contributor guide and attest that this pull request is in accordance with it.
  • I have made or updated a changelog entry for the changes in this pull request.

One sentence summary of this PR (This should go in the CHANGELOG!)
Fix PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer missing from get_components endpoint. get_components only return components who's name is equal to it's id.

Link to Related Issue(s)

#655

Please describe the changes in your request.

  • Change id of PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer to b"PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer"

Anyone you think should look at this, specifically?

@rbs-jacob

@rbs-afflitto rbs-afflitto changed the title Add id for PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer Fix auto discovery of PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer Oct 3, 2025
@rbs-afflitto rbs-afflitto requested a review from rbs-jacob October 3, 2025 20:18
Copy link
Member

@rbs-jacob rbs-jacob left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Once the failing tests are fixed, this will be good to merge.

@rbs-afflitto
Copy link
Collaborator Author

PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer is actually discovered correctly. The issue is that it is not returned in the API get_components endpoint because components with name != ID are filtered out. See #655. I'll push a change to fix the test, and leave it to @rbs-jacob and @whyitfor if we should accept this PR, or close it and change the filtering logic to allow components with different names and IDs.

@rbs-afflitto rbs-afflitto changed the title Fix auto discovery of PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer Fix PyGhidraDecompilationAnalyzer missing from get_components endpoint Oct 22, 2025
@rbs-jacob
Copy link
Member

I'll push a change to fix the test, and leave it to @rbs-jacob and @whyitfor if we should accept this PR, or close it and change the filtering logic to allow components with different names and IDs.

My vote is for "both." I think we should merge this PR that will improve functionality in the short-term. We should also get to the bottom of why the API server filters out components where the name and ID are not equal, so that we can either remove that filter or fix the underlying issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants