Fix unicode unescape behavior affected by sequential replace - #472
Merged
hlship merged 1 commit intoMar 10, 2026
Merged
Conversation
hlship
approved these changes
Mar 10, 2026
Member
|
Thanks for the patch; did you find this in the wild? That an awful lot of escaping and unescaping! |
Contributor
Author
|
Yes. We use a JSON scalar type in a query field, and one day someone submitted some unusual data. 😅 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
I believe there is an issue in the unicode unescape logic.
The current implementation performs two replace operations sequentially, where the second replacement may be affected by the result of the first one. This can lead to incorrect behavior in certain cases.
I'm not sure whether this behavior was intentional. Looking through the commit history, it appears the implementation has been this way since it was introduced, and I couldn't find additional context explaining the design choice.
To clarify the problem, I added a test case that demonstrates the issue.
Please see the new test for a concrete example of the behavior.