Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
I tested this in our staging environment and it seemed to work correctly. |
Contributor
Author
|
@Roguelazer thank you. It's a bit of a hack-ish solution, but it should suffice for |
Collaborator
|
This is passing internal tests using IPV4 addresses, meaning I can confirm it doesn't break existing use cases
Considering the IPV6 side tested by @Roguelazer here Thanks @shlomi-noach and @Roguelazer! |
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
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fixed #604
This PR correctly parses
ipv6addresses. The following are valid:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0::12001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e8[2001:db8:1f70::999:de8:7648:6e8]:3306cc @Roguelazer