-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for sha256 and md5 field in matchspec #241
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this PR!
I agree that we should merge the two representations. I'm already working on a PR that refactors both types, reduces the memory footprint, and increases performance! 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2 small comments otherwise looks good to me!
@0xbe7a thanks a lot!! |
Closes #207
Currently,
MatchSpec
andNamelessMatchSpec
share a considerable amount of logic and fields, with the former essentially being the latter plus a name field.A future PR should look into merging these two classes to reduce redundancy, streamline the codebase and improve maintainability.