Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Aug 9, 2024
Merged

feat: checker-experiment #3873

merged 11 commits into from
Aug 9, 2024

Conversation

joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 75.71%. Comparing base (d6cbe40) to head (f3fb022).
Report is 38 commits behind head on main.

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     
Flag Coverage Δ
longtests 75.71% <ø> (+0.30%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'll look into the checker experiment PR once I'm done with my midsems.
Meanwhile get well soon @terriko :)

@terriko
Copy link
Contributor

terriko commented Apr 3, 2024

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@terriko terriko left a 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!

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@terriko
Copy link
Contributor

terriko commented Aug 9, 2024

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@terriko terriko left a 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!

@terriko terriko merged commit a1c7226 into intel:main Aug 9, 2024
22 checks passed
@joydeep049 joydeep049 deleted the checker-experiment branch August 11, 2024 06:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants