Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Do not try accessing the appsec settings if the appsec module is not loaded #2679

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 10, 2023
Merged

Do not try accessing the appsec settings if the appsec module is not loaded #2679

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
397a1f3
Do not try accessing the appsec settings if the appsec module is not …
GustavoCaso Mar 9, 2023
b11eaaa
use `respond_to?` rather than `defined?`. It allow us to better test …
GustavoCaso Mar 10, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lib/datadog/appsec/component.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ module AppSec
class Component
class << self
def build_appsec_component(settings)
return unless settings.enabled
return unless defined?(Datadog::AppSec::Configuration) && settings.appsec.enabled
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I initially suggested defined?, but looking at the code here, I think we could probably get away with respond_to?(:appsec).

That would probably make it way easier to test -- we could just pass in a mock settings object that did not have an appsec entry.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes a lot of sense. I like the idea of being able to test that functionality as well.

Thanks for the suggestion 😄


processor = create_processor
new(processor: processor)
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion lib/datadog/core/configuration/components.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ def initialize(settings)
@telemetry = self.class.build_telemetry(settings)

# AppSec
@appsec = Datadog::AppSec::Component.build_appsec_component(settings.appsec)
@appsec = Datadog::AppSec::Component.build_appsec_component(settings)
end

# Starts up components
Expand Down
11 changes: 7 additions & 4 deletions spec/datadog/appsec/component_spec.rb
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,12 +4,15 @@
RSpec.describe Datadog::AppSec::Component do
describe '.build_appsec_component' do
let(:settings) do
Datadog::AppSec::Configuration::Settings.new.merge(
Datadog::AppSec::Configuration::DSL.new.tap do |appsec|
appsec.enabled = appsec_enabled
end
double(
appsec: Datadog::AppSec::Configuration::Settings.new.merge(
Datadog::AppSec::Configuration::DSL.new.tap do |appsec|
appsec.enabled = appsec_enabled
end
)
)
end

context 'when appsec is enabled' do
let(:appsec_enabled) { true }
it 'returns a Datadog::AppSec::Component instance' do
Expand Down