[release/5.0-rc2] Make newline escaping logic more robust #22602
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
bricelam
force-pushed
the
quote
branch
2 times, most recently
from
85aa742
to
bb4dc28
Compare
bricelam
changed the title
AndriySvyryd
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2020
|
Added one more test string after reviewing code coverage of the new methods. Now they're 100% covered. |
|
@bricelam Approved by Tactics. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #22553
Description
We added some code in 5.0 to escape newlines in generated migrations. Unfortunately, this code was a little naive and missed some important cases. Several customers have hit this using RC1.
Customer Impact
This will impact many customers, as indicated by the multiple reports we already have against RC1.
How found
Customer reported on RC1.
Test coverage
We were lacking test coverage for the escaping. Better test coverage is included in this PR.
Regression?
Yes, from 3.1.
cc @Pilchie