NETOBSERV-269 Port exact match #118
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
jpinsonneau
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's perfectly fine for me @jotak as soon as it's documented
I had the same approach with common fields at first
=> tested and validated on my side
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jotak The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
doing a "trick" by matching for a coma after the port value, to ensure exact match. It works as long as port isn't the last field (which is never the case afaik). The other option could be to do an explicit exact match after a json extraction, which is probably cleaner but less performant. So, it's debatable...