use correct options in specs #1511
Merged
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
|
I also agree with @Feder1co5oave that we should remove the |
davisjam
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
davisjam
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
| hr: /^ {0,3}((?:- *){3,}|(?:_ *){3,}|(?:\* *){3,})(?:\n+|$)/, | ||
| heading: /^ *(#{1,6}) *([^\n]+?) *(?:#+ *)?(?:\n+|$)/, | ||
| nptable: noop, | ||
| heading: /^ {0,3}(#{1,6}) +([^\n]*?)(?: +#+)? *(?:\n+|$)/, |
davisjam
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
| table: noop, | ||
| lheading: /^([^\n]+)\n {0,3}(=|-){2,} *(?:\n+|$)/, | ||
| paragraph: /^([^\n]+(?:\n(?!hr|heading|lheading| {0,3}>|<\/?(?:tag)(?: +|\n|\/?>)|<(?:script|pre|style|!--))[^\n]+)*)/, | ||
| lheading: /^([^\n]+)\n {0,3}(=+|-+) *(?:\n+|$)/, |
davisjam
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
| lheading: /^([^\n]+)\n {0,3}(=+|-+) *(?:\n+|$)/, | ||
| // regex template, placeholders will be replaced according to different paragraph | ||
| // interruption rules of commonmark and the original markdown spec: | ||
| _paragraph: /^([^\n]+(?:\n(?!hr|heading|lheading|blockquote|fences|list|html)[^\n]+)*)/, |
davisjam
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
| fences: /^ {0,3}(`{3,}|~{3,})([^`\n]*)\n(?:|([\s\S]*?)\n)(?: {0,3}\1[~`]* *(?:\n+|$)|$)/, | ||
| paragraph: /^/, | ||
| heading: /^ *(#{1,6}) +([^\n]+?) *#* *(?:\n+|$)/ | ||
| nptable: /^ *([^|\n ].*\|.*)\n *([-:]+ *\|[-| :]*)(?:\n((?:.*[^>\n ].*(?:\n|$))*)\n*|$)/, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Super-linear.
- The construct
.*\|.*can be exploited through a run of|||...|. Can we replace with[^|]*|[^|]*? - I believe the same problem applies later in the
(?:.*[^>\n ].*section.
davisjam
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
| paragraph: /^/, | ||
| heading: /^ *(#{1,6}) +([^\n]+?) *#* *(?:\n+|$)/ | ||
| nptable: /^ *([^|\n ].*\|.*)\n *([-:]+ *\|[-| :]*)(?:\n((?:.*[^>\n ].*(?:\n|$))*)\n*|$)/, | ||
| table: /^ *\|(.+)\n *\|?( *[-:]+[-| :]*)(?:\n((?: *[^>\n ].*(?:\n|$))*)\n*|$)/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same genre of problem as the nptable.
if (/^ *\|(.+)\n *\|?( *[-:]+[-| :]*)(?:\n((?: *[^>\n ].*(?:\n|$))*)\n*|$)/.exec(' | \n' + ' '.repeat(50000))) {
console.log('match');
}
(Note, here and elsewhere I'm just checking regexes, not full exploitability).
davisjam
requested changes
Jul 2, 2019
|
I updated the
The only changed regexes were |
|
I did remove the |
styfle
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
styfle
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
styfle
reviewed
Jul 2, 2019
styfle
approved these changes
Jul 2, 2019
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
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.
Marked version: master
Description
I am trying to implement the changes from @Feder1co5oave in #1407
gfm: falsegfm: truepedantic: trueheading,lheading, andparagraphThese changes improve CommonMark compliance significantly:
Issues
closes #1407
fixes #1510
Contributor
Committer
In most cases, this should be a different person than the contributor.