Fix certificate deletion for array type certificates #1344
Conversation
|
Hi @andrey-zelenkov, |
|
Could we split the test change out into its own commit? I know it's currently just a single line change... but I prefer these to be done in separate steps... |
| @@ -1931,10 +1931,27 @@ nxt_controller_cert_in_use(nxt_str_t *name) | |||
| continue; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| nxt_conf_get_string(value, &str); | |||
| if (nxt_conf_type(value) == NXT_CONF_ARRAY) { | |||
| n = nxt_conf_array_elements_count(value); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You know I always like to reduce the scope of variables...
We could declare n here...
|
|
||
| if (nxt_strstr_eq(&str, name)) { | ||
| return 1; | ||
| for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similarly, we could now take advantage of C99 for loop initialisers and reduce the scope of i with
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {| if (nxt_strstr_eq(&str, name)) { | ||
| return 1; | ||
| for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { | ||
| element = nxt_conf_get_array_element(value, i); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... also element could be declared here...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm fine with both styles but I'll do the same style unit now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do think it's a little than just a style choice, see for example.
But I'll leave it up to you...
Sure. |
Hi @hongzhidao ! I guess you meant @andrey-zelenkov ? :-) |
Oh, you are right. I meant to tag @andrey-zelenkov. Thanks for catching that! |
Previously, the certificate deletion only handled string type certificates, causing issues when certificates were specified as an array in the configuration. Reviewed-by: Andrew Clayton <[email protected]>
|
Hi @ac000, |
Previously, the certificate deletion only handled string type certificates, causing issues when certificates were specified as an array in the configuration.