Minor bug fix for BrokerView#validateAllowedUri#1900
Merged
cshannon merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom Apr 10, 2026
Merged
Conversation
The wrong variable is being referenced in the nested loop. This does not cause the validation to actually break due to other checks done during the recursive call, but is incorrect either way. With this fix the counter needed tweaking for limiting the number of nested components as well. Follow on to apache#1847
tabish121
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2026
jbonofre
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2026
cshannon
added a commit
to cshannon/activemq
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2026
The wrong variable is being referenced in the nested loop. This does not cause the validation to actually break due to other checks done during the recursive call, but is incorrect either way. With this fix the counter needed tweaking for limiting the number of nested components as well. Follow on to apache#1847 (cherry picked from commit b787b0e)
cshannon
added a commit
to cshannon/activemq
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 10, 2026
The wrong variable is being referenced in the nested loop. This does not cause the validation to actually break due to other checks done during the recursive call, but is incorrect either way. With this fix the counter needed tweaking for limiting the number of nested components as well. Follow on to apache#1847 (cherry picked from commit b787b0e)
cshannon
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2026
The wrong variable is being referenced in the nested loop. This does not cause the validation to actually break due to other checks done during the recursive call, but is incorrect either way. With this fix the counter needed tweaking for limiting the number of nested components as well. Follow on to #1847 (cherry picked from commit b787b0e)
cshannon
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2026
The wrong variable is being referenced in the nested loop. This does not cause the validation to actually break due to other checks done during the recursive call, but is incorrect either way. With this fix the counter needed tweaking for limiting the number of nested components as well. Follow on to #1847 (cherry picked from commit b787b0e)
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.
The wrong variable is being referenced in the nested loop. This does not cause the validation to actually break due to other checks done during the recursive call, but is incorrect either way. With this fix the counter needed tweaking for limiting the number of nested components as well.
Follow on to #1847