chore: update changelog to 1.0.40

[mhduiy]

更新说明

自动更新 changelog 到版本 1.0.40

变更内容

• 更新 debian/changelog

版本信息

• 新版本: 1.0.40
• 目标分支: master

Summary by Sourcery

Chores:

• Bump Debian changelog entry to version 1.0.40 targeting the master branch.

[github-actions]

TAG Bot

TAG: 1.0.40
EXISTED: no
DISTRIBUTION: unstable

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

Updates the Debian changelog to reflect release version 1.0.40 targeting master, with no code or behavior changes.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Update Debian package changelog for new release version 1.0.40.	Add or modify the top changelog entry to bump version to 1.0.40. Adjust associated metadata in the changelog entry (e.g., date, description) to describe this release. Ensure the target branch information aligns with master for this version.	debian/changelog

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[deepin-ci-robot]

deepin pr auto review

这份 user wants me to review a git diff of a debian/changelog file.
The diff shows a new version entry 1.0.40 added above 1.0.39.
The changes listed are:

1. remove FileHandler backend and add null checks
2. improve JSON string handling in variant conversion
3. fix JSON validation to accept plain strings

I need to review this "code" (which is actually a changelog entry) based on:

1. Syntax logic
2. Code quality
3. Code performance
4. Code security

Analysis:

1. Syntax Logic (Format Compliance):

   • The format follows the Debian changelog standard: package (version) distribution; urgency=urgency.
   • It uses * for change entries.
   • It includes the maintainer line.
   • Potential Issue: The date is Thu, 05 Feb 2026. This is in the future relative to now (2023/2024), but maybe the user is time traveling or their system clock is wrong. However, strictly speaking, changelogs usually record past events. If this is a proposed future release, it's fine. If it's a typo, it's a logic error.
   • Potential Issue: The email address <zhangkun2@uniontech.com> looks internal. This is standard for internal distros like Deepin/UOS (UnionTech), so it's acceptable in that context.

2. Code Quality:

   • The messages are concise.
   • "fix: remove FileHandler backend and add null checks" combines two different things (removal and addition). It's often better to split them, but if they are part of the same commit/fix, it's acceptable.
   • "fix: fix JSON validation..." - The word "fix" is repeated. "fix: ensure JSON validation..." or "fix: adjust JSON validation..." reads better.

3. Code Performance:

   • Not applicable to a changelog file directly, but the content implies:
     • "remove FileHandler backend": Likely improves performance by reducing overhead or I/O.
     • "null checks": Adds safety, negligible performance impact.
     • "JSON string handling": Could be performance related or correctness related.

4. Code Security:

   • "add null checks": Good for security (prevents crashes/DoS).
   • "fix JSON validation": Good for security (prevents injection or parsing errors).
   • "remove FileHandler backend": Removing code often reduces the attack surface. This is a positive security step.

Drafting the Response:

• Overview: Acknowledge that this is a changelog diff.
• Syntax/Format: Check the Debian policy format. Point out the year 2026.
• Content Quality: Suggest splitting the "remove... and add..." line if they are unrelated. Suggest fixing the "fix: fix" redundancy.
• Implications (Performance/Security): Analyze the meaning of the changelog entries since there is no executable code here.
  • Security: Positive steps (null checks, validation).
  • Performance: Likely positive (backend removal).

Refining the "2026" point:
If the current date is 2024, 2026 is definitely a typo. I should flag this.

Refining the "fix: fix" point:
"fix: fix JSON validation" is clumsy. "fix: correct JSON validation" or just "fix: JSON validation" is better.

Structure of the answer:

1. Summary of the review.
2. Detailed breakdown by the requested categories (Syntax, Quality, Performance, Security).
3. Specific suggestions.

Language: Chinese.

Self-Correction during drafting:
Wait, the prompt asks to review the input (the diff). It's not asking me to review the code that caused the diff, but the diff itself. However, since the diff describes code changes, I should comment on the quality of the description of those changes, and the implications of those changes based on the text provided.

• Syntax: The format is correct for debian/changelog.
• Logic: The version bump (1.0.39 -> 1.0.40) is logical. The date is suspicious.
• Quality: The commit messages are clear but could be polished.

Let's write the response.

Response Structure:

1. 总体评价: The format is correct, but check the date.
2. 语法逻辑:
   • Date format is correct (RFC 2822), but value (2026) is likely wrong.
   • Version bump is correct.
3. 代码质量:
   • Changelog message style.
   • "fix: fix" redundancy.
   • Combining unrelated changes in one line.
4. 代码性能:
   • Based on the text "remove FileHandler", this is likely a performance win.
5. 代码安全:
   • Based on "null checks" and "JSON validation", this improves security.

Let's generate the content.

• Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 -> Typo? Should be 2024 or 2025?
• Message 1: fix: remove FileHandler backend and add null checks -> Suggest splitting if unrelated, or keep if tightly coupled.
• Message 3: fix: fix JSON validation -> Change to fix: ensure JSON validation accepts plain strings.

Final check of the prompt requirements: "syntax logic, code quality, code performance, and code security".

Okay, ready to write.

这份 debian/changelog 的 diff 文件记录了软件包 dde-app-services 从版本 1.0.39 升级到 1.0.40 的变更日志。由于这是一个日志文件的变更，而非源代码，我将主要从日志格式规范、变更描述的清晰度以及所描述变更对系统的影响（性能与安全）进行审查。

以下是详细的审查意见：

1. 语法逻辑与格式规范

• 格式符合 Debian 标准：
  • 变更日志遵循了标准的 Debian 格式：包名 (版本号) 发行版; 紧急程度。
  • 维护者信息和日期格式符合 RFC 2822 标准。
• 逻辑版本号递增：
  • 版本号从 1.0.39 更新到 1.0.40，符合版本递增逻辑。
• 潜在逻辑错误（日期）：
  • 问题：日期显示为 Thu, 05 Feb 2026。
  • 建议：除非这是为了未来某个特定时间点准备的计划发布，否则这很可能是一个拼写错误（年份应为当前年份，如 2024 或 2025）。错误的年份可能会导致打包工具或发布脚本产生混淆，建议修正为实际提交日期。

2. 代码质量

这里的“代码质量”主要指变更日志信息的撰写质量，良好的日志有助于维护和回溯。

• 措辞冗余：
  • 问题：第三行 fix: fix JSON validation to accept plain strings 中出现了重复的 "fix"。
  • 建议：改为 fix: adjust JSON validation to accept plain strings 或 fix: ensure JSON validation accepts plain strings，读起来更专业。
• 变更粒度：
  • 问题：第一行 fix: remove FileHandler backend and add null checks 包含了两个相对独立的操作（移除后端 和 添加空值检查）。
  • 建议：如果这两个修改是在同一个 commit 中且紧密相关（例如移除后端导致了需要添加空值检查），则可以保留；如果它们是修复两个不同 bug 的补丁，建议拆分为两行，以便更清晰地追踪问题根源。

3. 代码性能

虽然 diff 本身不包含代码，但根据日志描述，我们可以推断出性能影响：

• 移除 FileHandler backend：
  • 正面影响：移除一个后端通常意味着减少了代码的执行路径、减少了 I/O 操作或减少了内存占用。这通常是一个性能优化或架构简化的举措，有助于提升服务响应速度。
• JSON 字符串处理与空值检查：
  • 中性/正面影响：改进 JSON 处理逻辑通常是为了正确性，但优化后的字符串处理（如避免不必要的拷贝）也可能带来轻微的性能提升。添加空值检查虽然增加了极微小的判断开销，但换来的是程序的稳定性，是值得的。

4. 代码安全

根据日志描述，这些修改显著增强了软件的安全性：

• 添加空值检查：
  • 改进：这是一个非常直接的安全加固措施。它可以有效防止因空指针解引用导致的程序崩溃（DoS 风险）或潜在的内存破坏漏洞。
• 修复 JSON 验证：
  • 改进：修复 JSON 验证逻辑以接受纯字符串，意味着修复了之前可能存在的解析错误或过于严格的校验导致的拒绝服务。同时，正确的 JSON 处理是防止 JSON 注入攻击的关键。
• 移除 FileHandler backend：
  • 改进：减少代码库中的组件可以减少攻击面。如果 FileHandler 之前存在未修复的漏洞或不再被维护，移除它是消除安全隐患的最佳手段。

总结与修改建议

建议对 debian/changelog 做如下微调：

 dde-app-services (1.0.40) unstable; urgency=medium
 
-  * fix: remove FileHandler backend and add null checks
+  * fix: remove FileHandler backend
+  * fix: add null checks for potential null pointer dereferences
-  * fix: improve JSON string handling in variant conversion
+  * refactor: improve JSON string handling in variant conversion
-  * fix: fix JSON validation to accept plain strings
+  * fix: ensure JSON validation accepts plain strings
 
- -- zhangkun <zhangkun2@uniontech.com>  Thu, 05 Feb 2026 19:25:37 +0800
+ -- zhangkun <zhangkun2@uniontech.com>  Thu, 05 Feb 2024 19:25:37 +0800

主要改动点说明：

1. 修正日期：将 2026 改为当前年份（假设为 2024）。
2. 拆分条目：将移除后端和添加空值检查分开，除非它们必须同时存在。
3. 优化措辞：去除了重复的 "fix"，并根据变更性质使用了更准确的标签（如 refactor 表示重构，fix 表示修复）。

[robertkill]

/forcemerge

[deepin-bot]

Permission denied

[deepin-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: 18202781743, mhduiy, robertkill

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• debian/deepin/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[deepin-bot]

TAG Bot

✅ Tag created successfully

📋 Tag Details

• Tag Name: 1.0.40
• Tag SHA: f8ae8cf62dcd2c9128e1126721e2e0797e856420
• Commit SHA: 8c9e448e92de84d866c32fed68e8233725565247
• Tag Message:

  Release dde-app-services 1.0.40
  
  

• Tagger:
  • Name: mhduiy
• Distribution: unstable