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

[5.1] Backport #21320 #21927

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[5.1] Backport #21320 #21927

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mcordingley
Copy link
Contributor

As mentioned here, this fix should be back-ported to 5.1. This brings both the final changes and the added tests to ensure their correctness.

@taylorotwell taylorotwell requested a review from themsaid November 2, 2017 19:19
@themsaid
Copy link
Member

themsaid commented Nov 2, 2017

@mcordingley tests failing

@mcordingley
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcordingley commented Nov 2, 2017

I saw that. It looks like HHVM doesn't like something to do with something mocking PDO statements. I'm not sure what to make of that, since I'm using the same mocking calls as the pre-existing tests and this shouldn't even be touching PDO.

@themsaid
Copy link
Member

themsaid commented Nov 2, 2017

@mcordingley I think it's ok to exclude the problematic test. 5.1 is closed for changes anyways.

@mcordingley
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like test 247 (where the job fails) is DatabaseConnectionTest::testSelectProperlyCallsPDO

@mcordingley
Copy link
Contributor Author

From my phpunit --debug output:

Starting test 'DatabaseConnectionTest::testSettingDefaultCallsGetDefaultGrammar'.
W  244 / 1757 ( 13%)

Starting test 'DatabaseConnectionTest::testSettingDefaultCallsGetDefaultPostProcessor'.
W
Starting test 'DatabaseConnectionTest::testSelectOneCallsSelectAndReturnsSingleResult'.
W
Starting test 'DatabaseConnectionTest::testSelectProperlyCallsPDO'.

@taylorotwell
Copy link
Member

This took about 17 PRs to actually get right the first time. I don't want to go through that again on an existing stable release.

@mcordingley
Copy link
Contributor Author

mcordingley commented Nov 3, 2017

That is perfectly fine by me. Just felt a responsibility to backport it to the old LTS, per the updates policy. Otherwise, I'm also happy to be done with this issue for the same reason as you.

@taylorotwell
Copy link
Member

I'll just hold off on this. The requirement to actually have cracked the AES-256 encryption key of the entire application before this is useful I think makes it less plausible as an attack.

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.

3 participants