-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
sample regression #300
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
sample regression #300
Conversation
DO NOT MERGE
Summary of ChangesHello @dmihalcik-virtru, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request, titled 'sample regression' and marked 'DO NOT MERGE', appears to be a test or draft. The sole change involves a minor adjustment to a boolean assignment within the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
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.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a regression in the withTargetMode configuration method. The logic for determining whether to hex-encode root and segment hashes has been inverted, which contradicts the documented behavior for legacy TDF versions and will likely break existing tests. I have provided a comment with a suggested fix to restore the correct logic.
| var legacyTDF = version.compareTo(new Version("4.3.0")) < 0; | ||
| config.renderVersionInfoInManifest = !legacyTDF; | ||
| config.hexEncodeRootAndSegmentHashes = legacyTDF; | ||
| config.hexEncodeRootAndSegmentHashes = !legacyTDF; |
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.
This change appears to introduce a bug by inverting the logic for hexEncodeRootAndSegmentHashes.
According to the comment on line 318, TDF versions less than 4.3.0 (i.e., legacyTDF = true) should have hex encoding enabled. With this change, hexEncodeRootAndSegmentHashes is set to !legacyTDF. This means:
- For legacy TDFs (
legacyTDF = true), hex encoding will be disabled (false). - For modern TDFs (
legacyTDF = false), hex encoding will be enabled (true).
This is the opposite of the intended behavior and will likely cause the withCompatibilityModeShouldSetFieldsCorrectly test in ConfigTest.java to fail. The original logic was correct and should be restored.
| config.hexEncodeRootAndSegmentHashes = !legacyTDF; | |
| config.hexEncodeRootAndSegmentHashes = legacyTDF; |
DO NOT MERGE