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(sca): ignore package.json file when yarn.lock exists #4370

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 30, 2023

Conversation

ayajbara
Copy link
Contributor

@ayajbara ayajbara commented Jan 30, 2023

Description

currently if we have yarn.lock file and package.json, we build a DT for yarn.lock and scan package.json.

Fixes # (issue)

New/Edited policies (Delete if not relevant)

Description

Include a description of what makes it a violation and any relevant external links.

Fix

How does someone fix the issue in code and/or in runtime?

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have added tests that prove my feature, policy, or fix is effective and works
  • New and existing tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

@ayajbara ayajbara changed the title feat(sca) ignore package.json file when yarn.lock exists feat(sca): ignore package.json file when yarn.lock exists Jan 30, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@itai1357 itai1357 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this bug causes me to think, maybe we need to get the scannable files from the DT-setup and use API call for getting the scanned file, for avoiding sure errors in the future

@ayajbara ayajbara merged commit b6735d3 into main Jan 30, 2023
@ayajbara ayajbara deleted the ignore_package_json branch January 30, 2023 11:57
andyloughran pushed a commit to andyloughran/checkov that referenced this pull request Feb 10, 2023
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants