fix: nil pointer dereference in deletion sequencing when a before-resource is not yet observed#140
Merged
bobh66 merged 2 commits intocrossplane-contrib:mainfrom May 6, 2026
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
First time contributor, feel free to guide me if I did something not according to expectations :) |
…ource is not yet observed when enableDeletionSequencing=true, the function panics when a before-resource exists in desired but not yet in observed Signed-off-by: Gabriel Gaudreau <ggaudreau@genetec.com>
gabgaudreau
force-pushed
the
fix/nil-pointer-deletion-sequencing
branch
from
5474780 to
c9d8526
Compare
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description of your changes
When
enableDeletionSequencing=true, the function panics if a "before" resource exists in desiredComposed but not yet in observedComposed. Skip usage generation for resources that haven't been observed yet, the next reconcile should pick them up.The unit test added covers exactly the use-case I have that reproduced the issue. Running the test without the code change correctly reproduces the issue.
Fixes #139
I have: