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.

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

detect: absent keyword to test absence of sticky buffer #11509

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/2224

Describe changes:

  • detect: adds absent keyword to match on absent buffer

SV_BRANCH=OISF/suricata-verify#1957

#11459 with code review taken into account

Ticket: 2224

It takes an argument to match only if the buffer is absent,
or it can still match if the buffer is present, but we test
the absence of some content
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 15, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.38462% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.65%. Comparing base (223a419) to head (ebe2d48).
Report is 28 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11509      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.56%   82.65%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         938      938              
  Lines      248247   248391     +144     
==========================================
+ Hits       204961   205312     +351     
+ Misses      43286    43079     -207     
Flag Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus 60.82% <39.20%> (+0.15%) ⬆️
livemode 18.84% <16.00%> (+0.15%) ⬆️
pcap 43.83% <34.40%> (+0.18%) ⬆️
suricata-verify 61.57% <80.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unittests 59.44% <68.58%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

@suricata-qa
Copy link

Information: QA ran without warnings.

Pipeline 21549

@inashivb inashivb self-requested a review July 16, 2024 03:35
Copy link
Member

@inashivb inashivb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM 🚀

@jufajardini
Copy link
Contributor

Docs look good to me :)

@catenacyber
Copy link
Contributor Author

@victorjulien what do you think ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants