Skip to content

Conversation

@harshit-kumar-v2
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Please include a summary of the change, motivation and context.

Testing

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please summarize what did you test and what needs to be tested e.g. deployed and tested helm chart locally.

Checklist:

  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Documentation

Make sure that you have documented corresponding changes in this repository or hypertrace docs repo if required.

@harshit-kumar-v2 harshit-kumar-v2 requested a review from a team as a code owner March 5, 2025 10:22
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2025

Test Results

32 tests  ±0   32 ✅ ±0   14s ⏱️ -1s
 9 suites ±0    0 💤 ±0 
 9 files   ±0    0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 3f04349. ± Comparison against base commit 0530d03.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 5, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.21%. Comparing base (0530d03) to head (3f04349).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #115      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     68.53%   68.21%   -0.33%     
  Complexity      107      107              
============================================
  Files            17       17              
  Lines           623      623              
  Branches         32       32              
============================================
- Hits            427      425       -2     
- Misses          177      179       +2     
  Partials         19       19              
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 68.21% <ø> (-0.33%) ⬇️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

mihirgt
mihirgt previously approved these changes Mar 6, 2025
@harshit-kumar-v2 harshit-kumar-v2 merged commit e3d0cb9 into main Mar 6, 2025
5 of 6 checks passed
@harshit-kumar-v2 harshit-kumar-v2 deleted the bump-micromter branch March 6, 2025 11:24
file name: micrometer-registry-prometheus-simpleclient-1.14.4.jar, fix not available yet
]]></notes>
<packageUrl regex="true">^pkg:maven/io\.micrometer/micrometer-registry-prometheus-simpleclient@.*$</packageUrl>
<cve>CVE-2019-3826</cve>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a FP, please use a CPE suppression with no expiration and move it to the global suppression file. The vulnerability is in the prom server, not client.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

By suppressing the CPE instead of the CVE we prevent future issues from popping up here too. The CVE suppression says "CVE-2019-3826 is not applicable to the micrometer prom client". The CPE suppression says "the micrometer prom client isn't the same thing as the prometheus server, and thus should not inherit prometheus server vulnerabilities".

Hope that helps.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants