fix: prevent nil pointer dereference in eventwatcher re-clone#6356
Merged
khanhtc1202 merged 1 commit intoNov 20, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: hono0130 <toda_honoka@cyberagent.co.jp>
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What this PR does:
Fix nil pointer dereference in event watcher when repository re-clone fails.
Why we need it:
During the GitHub service disruption on 2025-11-18 (https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/5q7nmlxz30sk), piped crashed with a nil pointer panic:
When
repo.Pull()fails, the event watcher tries to re-clone the repository. However, the original code had a bug:This fix ensures the repo variable is only updated when re-cloning succeeds:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
How are users affected by this change:
Piped no longer crashes during git service disruptions. The event watcher continues retrying instead of panicking.
Is this breaking change:
No