-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
uv audit #770
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
uv audit #770
Changes from 2 commits
a97706a
28414f1
0a697f7
88c643f
65ddbf1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
|
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @Scienfitz: I've had a quick look but it seems there is no straightforward way to implement your idea of auditing only primary dependencies. However, the In any case, it means there is no immediate solution for the problem at hand. So how do we want to handle secondary deps vulnerabilties for now? Manually excludes?
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. i was thinking of it a separate bash logic int he aciton not as configuraiton of
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Sure, we (or claude) could hack something together, but I'm not sure if this is gonna be very robust, given that the entire
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. if you assess that the tool is evolving too quickly then let snot hack something but what do we do in the meantime with the amount of errors?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok, I've now opened the issue + tried the custom script. As soon as either the feature gets implemented on
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. hmmmm I would have prefered if this only affects the action and not the entire tox command, ie its a seconds step after the
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I thought a bit about this as well and also have to say that I am not entirely happy with a hacked script that is hard to understand and highly depends on the output format (e.g. the regex) of a tool rapidly evolving. I however also see the advantages of the test only failing for primary dependencies. I think I would prefer to have this as a two step approach: First just replace |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.