-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
De cleanups/20241010/v2 #11937
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
De cleanups/20241010/v2 #11937
Conversation
This was done following the fact that this setting was historically named incorrectly. The purpose of the setting was always to define the ports that will be prioritized and have rule groups associated w them on priority. Rename all occurences of this to correctly reflect the purpose of the setting.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #11937 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.74% 82.73% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 912 912
Lines 249102 249088 -14
==========================================
- Hits 206117 206078 -39
- Misses 42985 43010 +25
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
3f6dd37
to
6931e8f
Compare
Information: QA ran without warnings. Pipeline 23087 |
|
||
const char *ports = NULL; | ||
(void)ConfGet("detect.grouping.tcp-whitelist", &ports); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we need to handle old configs as well, which means we first read the new tcp-priorityports
option, but if it doesn't exist, we try tcp-whitelist
Btw tcp-priority-ports
looks better to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
see inline
Previous PR: #11928
Changes since v1: