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

Update vulnerabilities to use new Tool specification #438

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shaikhu
Copy link

@shaikhu shaikhu commented Jun 25, 2024

According to the docs, since v1.5 the Tools format has been deprecated and a new format recommended. While the entity Metada has been updated to use the new format (new method setToolChoice), Vulnerability has not. This PR adds a similar method to Vulnerability.

Signed-off-by: Usman Shaikh <shaikhu@gmail.com>
@shaikhu shaikhu requested a review from a team as a code owner June 25, 2024 09:12
@nscuro nscuro added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 25, 2024
Copy link

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
-0.02% 33.33%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (3702283) 5924 4321 72.94%
Head commit (26896b9) 5927 (+3) 4322 (+1) 72.92% (-0.02%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#438) 3 1 33.33%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences


🚀 Don’t miss a bit, follow what’s new on Codacy.

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

Comment on lines 95 to 97
@JacksonXmlElementWrapper(localName = "tools")
@JacksonXmlProperty(localName = "tool")
private List<Tool> tools;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

tools should be marked as deprecated to avoid confusion, similar to how it's done in Metadata:

@VersionFilter(Version.VERSION_12)
@Deprecated
private List<Tool> tools;

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

tools should be marked as deprecated to avoid confusion, similar to how it's done in Metadata:

@VersionFilter(Version.VERSION_12)
@Deprecated
private List<Tool> tools;

👍 7fc564a

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Metadata has a custom deserializer to deal with the tool deserialization:

private void parseTools(JsonNode toolsNode, Metadata metadata, ObjectMapper mapper) throws JsonProcessingException {
if (toolsNode.isArray()) {
setToolInfo(toolsNode, metadata, mapper);
} else if (toolsNode.has("tool")) {
JsonNode toolNode = toolsNode.get("tool");
if (toolNode.isArray()) {
setToolInfo(toolNode, metadata, mapper);
} else {
Tool tool = mapper.convertValue(toolNode, Tool.class);
metadata.setTools(Collections.singletonList(tool));
}
} else {
ToolInformation toolInformation = new ToolInformation();
if (toolsNode.has("components")) {
parseComponents(toolsNode.get("components"), toolInformation, mapper);
}
if (toolsNode.has("services")) {
parseServices(toolsNode.get("services"), toolInformation, mapper);
}
metadata.setToolChoice(toolInformation);
}
}

That doesn't seem to be the case for Vulnerability. @mr-zepol am I seeing this right that in order to support ToolInformation in Vulnerability, we need a custom deserializer there as well?

Signed-off-by: Usman Shaikh <shaikhu@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants