Pike-devel March 2020

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

4 participants
8 discussions

Pike Meet-up 2018-Q1
by Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 20 Oct '21

20 Oct '21

Hi. At Pike Conference 2017 it was decided that we ought to hold a more informal meeting in Linköping ~ once every quarter. As the three month mark from the conference is coming up soon, it seems time to announce the first such meeting for 2018: Pike Meet-up 2018-Q1 Date: 2018-02-03 (Sat) Time: 10:00 - afternoon/evening Place: Roxen IS AB S:t Larsgatan 22A Linköping Welcome! /grubba

2 13

Crypto.Password and Blowfish
by Stephen R. van den Berg 20 Jul '20

20 Jul '20

Has anyone attempted to add support for Blowfish encryption to Crypto.Password? I have some $2y$... prefixed passwords (interfacing with the PHP password_verify()) which I need to verify. -- Stephen.

4 11

Operator assignment and strict_types
by Marc Simpson 07 Jul '20

07 Jul '20

Hi folks, It looks like operator assignment (op=), increment and decrement statements aren't subjected to the same typechecks as their more explicit equivalents. For example, neither the post-increment nor += statements below warn with strict_types enabled, even though they assign values outside of foo's restricted int domain: int(3..3) foo = 3; foo++; // no warning foo += 1; // no warning foo = foo + 1; // warning from strict_types Similarly, operator assignment on aggregates fails to elicit a warning: array(int) a = ({}); multiset(int) b = (<>); mapping(int:int) c = ([]); // no warnings a += ({ "hey" }); b += (< "hey" >); c += ([ "hey": "there" ]); // warnings from strict_types a = a + ({ "hey" }); b = b + (< "hey" >); c = c + ([ "hey": "there" ]); I'm guessing this is because the checks provided by the F_ASSIGN/F_ASSIGN_SELF case (las.c) only apply to direct assignment; op= and friends are presumably not instrumented for strict_types in the same manner. Have there been any discussions around addressing this inconsistency? Thanks, Marc

3 3

Pike-bot
by Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 22 Mar '20

22 Mar '20

Hi The githelper instance on pike-git.lysator.liu.se has been extended to know about the gitlab issue tracker at git.lysator.liu.se. It can set and remove some labels on issues, and also close issues. The policies are relatively straight forward: * The Stalled label is always cleared. * The Doing label is set if the issue isn't resolved by this commit. * An issue is considered resolved if the commit says that it is a fix and it is committed to the appropriate branch for the milestone of the issue, in which case: * The Doing label is removed. * The To Do: Change Log label is removed if CHANGES is altered. * The Resolved::Fixed label is set if no Resolved::* label is already set. * The issue is closed if there are no remaining To Do:* labels. Updating your githelper will cause it to (by default) validate issue references in commit-messages. Enjoy! /grubba

1 0

SSL3.Context->find_cert_domain()
by william＠welliver.org 19 Mar '20

19 Mar '20

I'm looking into adding ACME ALPN challenge support to an application that uses the SSL module and I think it's possible to do that by using a custom SSL Context object; however it seems that I'd need access to the SSL Session from find_cert_domain in order to determine if the connection was requesting challenge authentication. I'm also assuming that the module doesn't otherwise cache the certificates returned from this call. Would it be unreasonable to either change the signature of find_cert_domain() to include this, or possibly add an optional method to that would get used if present (for backward compatibility reasons)? Of course, if I get it working in a reasonable fashion, I'd be happy to contribute this hypothetical ACME Context. Any thoughts? Bill

1 0

Stdio.Buffer() bug ?
by Arne Goedeke 12 Mar '20

12 Mar '20

Commit 20d1fa961d0059657d471d700ce63bcb3ab9d3ca mentions that there is a bug in the Stdio.Buffer support in Stdio.File()->write() (I assume). Stephen, can you explain how it is broken? Do you have a test case? Does it have something to do with the fact that you are using a subclass of Stdio.Buffer? Arne

4 8

ADT.OrderedMapping() and duplicate entries
by Stephen R. van den Berg 07 Mar '20

07 Mar '20

Can it be considered a bug that when you add a duplicate key to an ADT.OrderedMapping() that it does add the key/value at the end, but fails to delete the already present same old key (value)? Shall I fix it? -- Stephen.

1 0

Issue tracker
by Henrik Grubbstr�m (Lysator) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 06 Mar '20

06 Mar '20

Hi. At the 2020-Q1 meet-up we decided to use the GitLab issue tracker at https://git.lysator.liu.se/pikelang/pike/ for Pike. Issue numbers were reserved as follows: * 1 - 7999 Bugzilla bugs ([Bug XXXX]). * 8000 - 9999 YouTrack issues ([PIKE-XXXX]). * 10000 - New (GitLab) issues (#XXXXX). The historic bugs from http://bugzilla.roxen.com/ have now been imported (with the same tracking numbers). This means that they (well most of them) are publically available again. Note that due to the GitLab API used for the import, all issues and comments are attributed to Peter Bortas, although the first line of each mentions the original commenter. /grubba

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel March 2020