Conversation
powerjg
force-pushed
the
artifact-missing
branch
from
58ed7a4 to
f7efc7a
Compare
If the artifact can't be found in the db when we're trying to initialize it with a UUID, add a bunch of fake defaults to make other callers (e.g., run.loadFromDict) happy. Signed-off-by: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
powerjg
force-pushed
the
artifact-missing
branch
from
f7efc7a to
35d9a73
Compare
|
Testing is cool! The static analyzer caught one problem that was non-obvious (and another obvious problem that I was too lazy to test :/) |
powerjg
changed the title
|
I wonder in what scenario we cannot retrieve the Artifact's, and whether the fake defaults will ever be written to the database. My understanding is that, the only time that an Artifact being written to the database is when we call RegisterArtifact(). In that case, all information is not garbage, and other functions only read from the database. So, creating an Artifact using init won't result in fake defaults being written to the database. If that is the case then I think this makes sense. Other than that, I think we should output some warnings as well when we cannot retrieve the Artifact from the database. We don't want it to be silently failed. |
|
Even though the underlying problem (someone deleting everything from the database) was different, I still think this change is useful. However, I can see how there may be unintended side effects. @takekoputa, how do you suggest we have warnings? I almost just feel like leaving this PR open and coming back to this if we find another use case (other than being ransomwared ;)) |
2 participants
Signed-off-by: Jason Lowe-Power jason@lowepower.com