Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 12, 2024. It is now read-only.

unpkg.com CDN serves incorrect version of IPFS dist files #1164

Closed
witten opened this issue Dec 21, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

unpkg.com CDN serves incorrect version of IPFS dist files #1164

witten opened this issue Dec 21, 2017 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
exp/expert Having worked on the specific codebase is important kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws) P1 High: Likely tackled by core team if no one steps up

Comments

@witten
Copy link

witten commented Dec 21, 2017

  • Version: Any
  • Platform: Linux flux 4.2.0-23-generic #28~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Dec 31 13:40:42 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux (Firefox 57.0.1)
  • Subsystem: n/a

Severity: Medium

Description:

When fetching either minified or unminified dist versions of js-ipfs from unpkg.com, the previous release from the version requested is returned.

Steps to reproduce the error:

GET https://unpkg.com/ipfs@0.27.5/dist/index.js contains module.exports = {"name":"ipfs","version":"0.27.4" ...

GET https://unpkg.com/ipfs@0.27.4/dist/index.js contains module.exports = {"name":"ipfs","version":"0.27.3" ...

GET https://unpkg.com/ipfs@0.27.3/dist/index.js contains module.exports = {"name":"ipfs","version":"0.27.2" ...

You get the idea..

This is confusing, and could lead to developers getting a different version of js-ipfs than they're expecting, inaccurate bug reports, etc.

@mkg20001
Copy link
Contributor

I think this is because the version gets bumped after the minification by aegir.

@witten
Copy link
Author

witten commented Dec 23, 2017

That would do it. Might be good to change that ordering, as I can foresee folks reporting their ipfs.version() in bug reports or other issues, and inadvertently providing the incorrect version. I know I've already done that at least once.

@daviddias daviddias added the kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws) label Jan 24, 2018
@daviddias
Copy link
Member

Thanks for reporting this bug @witten. Seems that aegir got these steps mixed up. @victorbjelkholm could you look into this? Thank you!

@daviddias daviddias added status/ready Ready to be worked P1 High: Likely tackled by core team if no one steps up exp/expert Having worked on the specific codebase is important labels Jan 25, 2018
@daviddias
Copy link
Member

Moving this one to aegir -- ipfs/aegir#208

@ghost ghost removed the status/ready Ready to be worked label Mar 16, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
exp/expert Having worked on the specific codebase is important kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws) P1 High: Likely tackled by core team if no one steps up
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants