Skip to content
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

Add support and tests for URLComponents.percentEncodedQueryItems #2929

Conversation

rauhul
Copy link
Member

@rauhul rauhul commented Nov 26, 2020

rdar://59439703 (URLComponents.percentEncodedQueryItems missing on linux)

resubmission of #2870 against main

@spevans
Copy link
Contributor

spevans commented Nov 27, 2020

@swift-ci test

@rauhul
Copy link
Member Author

rauhul commented Dec 2, 2020

@spevans should I merge this or is it expected that the code owners will?

@spevans
Copy link
Contributor

spevans commented Dec 2, 2020

Could you just squash this down into 1 commit to remove the merge branch commit then I think it should be good to go. I think it should also be worth back-porting to 5.3 since its adding missing functionality. Thanks.

- rdar://59439703 (URLComponents.percentEncodedQueryItems missing on linux)

Fixes from @millenomi
- Constant strings must be correctly memory-managed in SCF.
- Do not associate API availability to CFURLComponents calls when compiling SCF on Darwin
@rauhul rauhul force-pushed the feature/URLComponents.percentEncodedQueryItems branch from 1ee4794 to b74af0a Compare December 4, 2020 06:41
@rauhul
Copy link
Member Author

rauhul commented Dec 4, 2020

@spevans

Could you just squash this down into 1 commit to remove the merge branch commit then I think it should be good to go

done!

I think it should also be worth back-porting to 5.3 since its adding missing functionality. Thanks.

Does this mean I should also raise a pr against release/5.3?

@spevans
Copy link
Contributor

spevans commented Dec 4, 2020

@swift-ci test and merge

@spevans
Copy link
Contributor

spevans commented Dec 4, 2020

@rauhul The final decision on whether to add a pr to the next 5.3 patch release will be up-to the release manager but since this is fixing a bug (missing functionality) and isn't source breaking its probably eligible.

Once its gone into main use git cherry-pick -x <commit sha> to back-port it to the 5.3 branch as this will generate a nice commit message which Github will render with a link back to this PR. Then raise this as a new PR against the release/5.3 branch - (one of the reasons to squash commits is that it make back-porting easier).

@swift-ci swift-ci merged commit abbef64 into swiftlang:main Dec 4, 2020
@aschwaighofer
Copy link
Contributor

Could this be the cause that the bot is failing in:

https://ci.swift.org/job/oss-swift-incremental-RA-linux-ubuntu-16_04/15227


The following tests FAILED:
	1367 - TestFoundation.TestURLComponents-test_queryItems (ILLEGAL)
	1373 - TestFoundation.TestURLComponents-test_createURLWithComponents (ILLEGAL)
	1376 - TestFoundation.TestURLComponents-test_percentEncodedQueryItems (ILLEGAL)

@rauhul
Copy link
Member Author

rauhul commented Dec 5, 2020

@spevans @aschwaighofer any idea why this wouldn't have been caught pre-merge? I don't have a linux environment to repro on unfortunately.

@spevans
Copy link
Contributor

spevans commented Dec 5, 2020

It looks like it failed on ubuntu 16.04 and the CI only tests on 18.04 before merge. Im just getting an old 16.04 host up and running again to see if I can see what the issue is.

@spevans
Copy link
Contributor

spevans commented Dec 5, 2020

I retested this PR on Ubuntu 16.04 and could not get it to fail. Given the nature of the test failure (SIGILL) my best guess is the the CoreFoundation part did not get rebuilt since it explicitly adds a +1 retain, presumably that code is currently buggy anyway.

My suggestion is to create a new PR with just the CoreFoundation change and we can merge that. Once a nightly has gone out merge the rest in a 2nd PR. I think that should avoid any stale build cache issues.

@rauhul
Copy link
Member Author

rauhul commented Dec 6, 2020

@spevans sounds good, I PR'ed the CoreFoundation changes here #2936

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.

4 participants