Conversation
src/utilstrencodings.h
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: would a enum not be more adequate for a such operation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 for using enum. This is a perfect fit for one.
Not sure passing in the characters in a string is better. The idea makes sense, but having it like this keeps open the possibility of optimizing SanitizeString to use something else than string.find() on every character.
|
Concept ACK. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternative: error out if SanitizeString(x) != x, instead of silently dropping characters
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Made it to return error~~, but I am thinking about using warnings instead for the whole uacomment thing.~~
maflcko
force-pushed
the
MarcoFalke-2015-uacommentFix
branch
2 times, most recently
from
afb1e38 to
dfafd6f
Compare
|
Force pushed changes requested in the comments. |
* SanitizeString() can be requested to be more strict * Throw error when SanitizeString() changes uacomments * Fix tests
maflcko
force-pushed
the
MarcoFalke-2015-uacommentFix
branch
from
dfafd6f to
1c1b1b3
Compare
1c1b1b3 [uacomment] Sanitize per BIP-0014 (MarcoFalke)
|
Tested ACK |
Misc upstream PRs Cherry-picked from the following upstream PRs: - bitcoin/bitcoin#6077 - Second commit only (first was already applied to 0.11.X and then reverted) - bitcoin/bitcoin#6284 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6489 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6462 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6647 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6235 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6905 - bitcoin/bitcoin#6780 - Excluding second commit (QT) and third commit (requires bitcoin/bitcoin#6993) - bitcoin/bitcoin#6961 - Excluding QT parts, and a small `src/policy/policy.cpp` change which depends on a bunch of other PRs, which we'll have to remember to come back to. - bitcoin/bitcoin#7044 - bitcoin/bitcoin#8856 - bitcoin/bitcoin#9002 Part of #2074 and #2132.
3 participants
SanitizeString()can be requested to be more strictSanitizeString()touacomments