-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 462
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
feat: checker-experiment #3873
feat: checker-experiment #3873
Conversation
Changes
Changes-2
Changes
Changes
Changes
Changes
Signed-off-by: Joydeep Tripathy <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3873 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 75.41% 75.71% +0.30%
==========================================
Files 808 809 +1
Lines 11983 12108 +125
Branches 1598 1634 +36
==========================================
+ Hits 9037 9168 +131
+ Misses 2593 2588 -5
+ Partials 353 352 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
I'll look into the checker experiment PR once I'm done with my midsems. |
Marking this as blocked because I honestly don't know what to do with it right now and I don't intend to review it again until after the 3.3 release is out. |
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.
Hey, finally circling back to some old pull requests...
@joydeep049 did you want to put a SPDX header onto this and have it merged? I don't think we're desperate to have it, but it's nice work that could help someone else poke around in this space and I don't see any harm in having it in the experiments directory, but I do want it to have a correct license header.
Our standard header is here: https://github.com/intel/cve-bin-tool/blob/main/spdx_header.txt
Feel free to use your name instead of Intel Corporation if you prefer.
And equally, if you're done with all this and don't want to think about it, feel free to just close it!
I've made the changes. If we're merging this, maybe we should take another look at #3840. |
Yes, #3840 is definitely on my radar! I'm trying to alternate between making decisions on older pull requests and working on stuff I have tagged for 3.4 this week and next before we hopefully get an early pre-release out. |
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.
Merge time! Thank you again!
This experiment is an extension of the CI-Pre-Checker github action. #3840
This script aims to print any and all the checkers which have {product,version} pairs in their VENDOR_PRODUCT which do NOT have any associated,reported CVEs
After this experiment is done and all the pre-existing checkers are taken care of , we can proceed to add the CI-Pre-checker github action for any newly added/updated checkers.
Result: All the pre-existing checkers are in the clear.
We can go ahead and add the github action.