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(kics): add usage of parallel flag for analyzer #6935

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pereiramarco011
Copy link
Collaborator

Closes #6934

Proposed Changes

  • Use the already added parallel flag to set the number of workers on the analyze portion of the scan command
  • Use the already added parallel flag to set the number of workers on the analyze standalone command
  • Add unit test for flag adjust value utils func

I submit this contribution under the Apache-2.0 license.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the feature New feature label Mar 7, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Mar 7, 2024

kics-logo

KICS version: v1.7.13

Category Results
HIGH HIGH 0
MEDIUM MEDIUM 0
LOW LOW 0
INFO INFO 0
TRACE TRACE 0
TOTAL TOTAL 0
Metric Values
Files scanned placeholder 1
Files parsed placeholder 1
Files failed to scan placeholder 0
Total executed queries placeholder 49
Queries failed to execute placeholder 0
Execution time placeholder 1

@nierz
Copy link

nierz commented Mar 10, 2024

Hi, thanks a bunch for this contribution! Should help solve my issue (#6934).

I have a quick question that maybe I'm misunderstanding:
This solution uses the same amount of parallel workers for both scan and analyze when running kics scan, correct?
So the behavior is the following - setting X parallel workers in the scan flags will scan using X * platforms workers, while the analyze section will only run X parallel workers.
Hypothetically, if KICS supported 100 platforms and one wants a maximum of 100 concurrent workers, one would set the parallel flag to 1 and then analyze would run with a single worker (and unavoidably so).

Is this the intended behavior?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature New feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

bug(scan): scan fails to create new OS thread
4 participants