Skip to content

Conversation

@attiasas
Copy link
Contributor

@attiasas attiasas commented Nov 7, 2024

  • The pull request is targeting the dev branch.
  • The code has been validated to compile successfully by running go vet ./....
  • The code has been formatted properly using go fmt ./....
  • All static analysis checks passed.
  • All tests have passed. If this feature is not already covered by the tests, new tests have been added.
  • Updated the Contributing page / ReadMe page / CI Workflow files if needed.
  • All changes are detailed at the description. if not already covered at JFrog Documentation, new documentation have been added.

On recursive scan (when working-dir flag and jfrog-apps-config file is not provided) if we detected sub directories with some tech, we would exclude all the other siblings' directories without one. in case the client is entitled for JAS, we would skip scanning does directories.

This PR adds a new technology NoTech for those cases

@attiasas attiasas added bug Something isn't working safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request labels Nov 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@attiasas attiasas mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2024
7 tasks
@attiasas attiasas changed the title Add NoTech Technology for JAS with no tech Add NoTech Technology for directories with no tech Nov 7, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@hadarshjfrog hadarshjfrog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code approved - just fix the static tests failure there

@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 7, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@attiasas attiasas added the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the safe to test Approve running integration tests on a pull request label Nov 10, 2024
@github-actions
Copy link

👍 Frogbot scanned this pull request and did not find any new security issues.


@github-actions
Copy link

Merging this branch will not change overall coverage

Impacted Packages Coverage Δ 🤖
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security 0.00% (ø)
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/commands/audit 0.00% (ø)
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils/results 0.00% (ø)
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils/techutils 0.00% (ø)

Coverage by file

Changed files (no unit tests)

Changed File Coverage Δ Total Covered Missed 🤖
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/commands/audit/audit.go 0.00% (ø) 0 0 0
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/commands/audit/scarunner.go 0.00% (ø) 0 0 0
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils/results/results.go 0.00% (ø) 0 0 0
github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils/techutils/techutils.go 0.00% (ø) 0 0 0

Please note that the "Total", "Covered", and "Missed" counts above refer to code statements instead of lines of code. The value in brackets refers to the test coverage of that file in the old version of the code.

Changed unit test files

  • github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/audit_test.go
  • github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/commands/audit/audit_test.go
  • github.com/jfrog/jfrog-cli-security/utils/techutils/techutils_test.go

@attiasas attiasas merged commit 4980706 into jfrog:dev Nov 10, 2024
@attiasas attiasas deleted the add_no_tech branch November 10, 2024 10:18
barv-jfrog pushed a commit to barv-jfrog/jfrog-cli-security that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants