move validation of names into validateSchema#4423
Closed
yaacovCR wants to merge 3 commits intographql:nextfrom
Closed
move validation of names into validateSchema#4423yaacovCR wants to merge 3 commits intographql:nextfrom
yaacovCR wants to merge 3 commits intographql:nextfrom
Conversation
This was referenced Jun 3, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
discussed a while back offline with @IvanGoncharov the reason for moving name validation into constructors was to prevent XSS attacks when displaying schema element names from unvalidated schemas, which apparently is a live concern, and would therefore be a potentially subtle BREAKING CHANGE for v17 with dangerous consequences. removing these checks is only a modest performance win, up to ~3% in my testing, and so it does not seem worth it to remove. So closing this PR in favor of other solutions like #4556 |
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
See discussion in #4362.
As noted by @ab-pm, this is a reversion of #3288 which itself reverted some of #1132.
We might need some more context on the motivation behind #3288.