fix(contrib/registry/consul): validate port in consul Register

[1911860538]

This PR addresses an issue where the port parsed from the endpoint using raw, err := url.Parse(endpoint) and raw.Port() was not being validated properly. Although raw.Port() extracts the port from the URL, it does not guarantee that the port is valid or within the legal range (0-65535). This fix ensures that the port is parsed and checked to fall within the valid range and is not zero, preventing invalid service registration.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

Adds stricter validation for service registration endpoints by ensuring parsed ports are within the valid range (1–65535) and non-zero, preventing invalid Consul registrations.

• Validate raw.Port() errors and reject zero or out-of-range ports
• Change second port parsing to use strconv.ParseUint instead of ParseInt

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

contrib/registry/consul/client.go:164

• No tests cover the new port validation logic (invalid, zero, or missing port). Add unit tests for endpoints with missing or out-of-range ports to verify correct error handling.

		port, err := strconv.ParseUint(raw.Port(), 10, 16)

contrib/registry/consul/client.go:163

• [nitpick] Port parsing and validation logic is repeated; extract into a shared helper function to reduce duplication and improve readability.

		addr := raw.Hostname()

[Copilot]

The error from strconv.ParseUint is ignored here; consider handling parse errors to avoid silently defaulting to port 0, similar to the validation added above.

Suggested change

	port, _ := strconv.ParseUint(portRaw, 10, 16)
	port, err := strconv.ParseUint(portRaw, 10, 16)
	if err != nil || port == 0 {
	return fmt.Errorf("invalid port in check address: %q", checkAddresses[0])
	}