Fix PortsForwarder.Expose() proxy check
#441
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: cpick The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
The check for existing `proxies` entries used `local` as a key, but they're actually inserted using keys of: `key(protocol, local)`. This meant that, previously, the check was ineffective and wouldn't reject duplicate forwards. Signed-off-by: Chris Pick <chris@chrispick.com>
cpick
force-pushed
the
fix-proxy-check
branch
from
97b8f50 to
0a63f4e
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The check for existing
proxiesentries usedlocalas a key, but they're actually inserted using keys of:key(protocol, local).This meant that, previously, the check was ineffective and wouldn't reject duplicate forwards.