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

Don't report unverifiable secrets when running --update #242

Closed
KevinHock opened this issue Sep 19, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

Don't report unverifiable secrets when running --update #242

KevinHock opened this issue Sep 19, 2019 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
pending The issue still needs to be reviewed by one of the maintainers.

Comments

@KevinHock
Copy link
Collaborator

See this comment for context #238 (comment)

but tl;dr is that we do not report them otherwise, so let's be consistent.

KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 18, 2019
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2019
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
@KevinHock KevinHock self-assigned this Oct 21, 2019
KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 29, 2019
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 19, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `_all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 19, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 19, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 19, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue #242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit to KevinHock/detect-secrets that referenced this issue May 30, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue Yelp#242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit to KevinHock/detect-secrets that referenced this issue May 30, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue Yelp#242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin
- 🐛 Remove unused named argument in cloudant.py and keyword.py

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit to KevinHock/detect-secrets that referenced this issue Jun 5, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue Yelp#242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin
- 🐛 Remove unused named argument in cloudant.py and keyword.py

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
KevinHock added a commit to KevinHock/detect-secrets that referenced this issue Jun 28, 2020
- 🐍 Add add_shared_arguments() function in usage.py for DRYness
- 🐛 Fix issue Yelp#242 via passing `should_verify_secrets=not args.no_verify` to `from_parser_builder` call
- 🐛 Fix sorting issue in format_baseline_for_output() where --update and regular scan had different secret order
- 💯 All non-separated out files again :D
- 🎓 Mention `--custom-plugins` in README
- 🎓 Standardize NOTE -> Note
- 🐛 Fix test pollution due to `all_plugins` cls attribute
- 🐍 Change all relative imports to absolute, to avoid broken imports if someone copies an existing plugin to make a custom plugin
- 🐛 Remove unused named argument in cloudant.py and keyword.py

🙈 Hacks located in `def parse_args` of usage.py
@domanchi domanchi assigned domanchi and unassigned KevinHock Nov 11, 2020
@lorenzodb1 lorenzodb1 added pending The issue still needs to be reviewed by one of the maintainers. and removed accuracy labels Jun 13, 2022
@lorenzodb1
Copy link
Member

We're going to close this issue as it hasn't received any update in a very long time. Feel free to re-open it if you think it's still relevant.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending The issue still needs to be reviewed by one of the maintainers.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants