fix(920539): prefer a bypass on a named rule rather than n+1 bypass#4610
Merged
Conversation
…ng on the next rule? Rewrite bypass
Contributor
|
📊 Quantitative test results for language: |
Contributor
|
@touchweb-vincent checks have failed, see "action "ctl" at pos 7 is in the wrong order: "ctl" at pos 8; rule id: 920539" can you fix it? |
Removed warnings about rule placement for 920539 and 920540.
Member
|
@EsadCetiner I think there might be a point here. Using |
EsadCetiner
approved these changes
Apr 11, 2026
Member
EsadCetiner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense.
On a sidenote, there are tests to check for when the rule should and shouldn't be skipped but this is a cleaner approach.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Proposed changes
Hello,
I find this idea #4405 (comment) risky, and I’m sure it will cause us issues someday.
I therefore suggest naming the bypass as we usually do on a named rule using ctl:ruleRemoveById, rather than using skip:1.
What do you think ?
PR Checklist
commentfield to write the expected behaviorFurther comments
For the reviewer
ctl:requestBodyAccess=Offwere used in the rule