[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5288?focusedWorklogId=862551&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-862551
 ]

ASF GitHub Bot logged work on WW-5288:
--------------------------------------

                Author: ASF GitHub Bot
            Created on: 29/May/23 00:19
            Start Date: 29/May/23 00:19
    Worklog Time Spent: 10m 
      Work Description: JCgH4164838Gh792C124B5 commented on PR #690:
URL: https://github.com/apache/struts/pull/690#issuecomment-1566323142

   Hello Apache Struts Team.
   
   I am unsure whether I understood everything that changed with WW-5288.  
However, after taking a look at the related unit tests, it seemed like a few 
additions and clarifications might make sense.
   This PR attempts to add a few additional tests, as well a potential minor 
optimization. 
   Please review the PR and advise if it could be considered (and if any 
changes are recommended).
   
   _Note_: Again, it seems there was a "sonar-maven-plugin" failure for the 
Java 11 build environment run, but the build itself seems to have completed OK.




Issue Time Tracking
-------------------

    Worklog Id:     (was: 862551)
    Time Spent: 3h  (was: 2h 50m)

> Make excluded package exemption logic more strict
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: WW-5288
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5288
>             Project: Struts 2
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Kusal Kithul-Godage
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 6.2.0
>
>          Time Spent: 3h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Following on from the discussion in the comments on WW-5268 - exempting 
> classes from excluded packages should only be done if unavoidable.
> Given this, I realised we should make the exemption logic more strict to 
> prevent incorrect use and inadvertent exempting of more OGNL expressions than 
> intended.
> * Currently, the exempted classes also match against superclasses. This is 
> unnecessary and we can match against only the specific class.
> * Currently, an exemption against either the target or member class suffices. 
> This can be made more strict by requiring an exemption for the class which 
> matches the excluded package specifically, which could be either or both.
> * The JavaDoc for the options should be very explicit in what each 
> configuration option achieves to prevent incorrect uses.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to