feat: support providing arbitrary packages to check via a csv#93
Merged
feat: support providing arbitrary packages to check via a csv#93
Conversation
d08b899 to
43b6a04
Compare
06f0386 to
61158dd
Compare
7c4b553 to
78a937d
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds support for providing CSV rows as input to allow specifying arbitrary packages.
This allows support for "unknown" ecosystems like
NuGet:Currently this feels a bit stiff for me, but on the other hand it is meant to be an advanced use-case so maybe it's fine? However I'd like to try and have support for reading from a CSV file before landing this, because I think otherwise it becomes unwieldy to use for larger inputs (and you might run into argument length limits).I think I might support this by just adding a new--parse-as-csv-fileflag - I was thinking about checking if an input looked like a file path, but I'm worried that that might go wrong e.g. a user (or worse an automatic tool) messes up the CSV input so badly it ends up looking like a filepath and the detector does something really silly, or someone somehow has a file/directory that looks like a valid CSV. Given what I just said about this being for advanced use-cases, having another explicit flag might be the way to go.(I still need to do the documentation and write tests for this)I've rewritten this significantly - now CSV support is done through using two special
--parse-asvalues; the documentation in the readme explains the rest, so I won't type it out again here.Resolves #13