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

Upgrade yargs to resolve CVE (Fixes #65) #66

Merged

Conversation

blimmer
Copy link
Contributor

@blimmer blimmer commented Jul 8, 2019

Also, upgraded tap-spec to resolve another CVE.

Also, upgraded tap-spec to resolve another CVE.
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
"mkdirp": "^0.5.1",
"noms": "0.0.0",
"through2": "^2.0.1",
"yargs": "^11.0.0"
"yargs": "^13.2.4"
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The biggest difference in the upgrade, from what I can tell, is how args.argv behaves. Here's argv in ^11:

./copyfiles /tmp/a.js /tmp/b.js -u1
{ _: [ '/tmp/a.js', '/tmp/b.js' ],
  version: false,
  v: false,
  a: false,
  all: false,
  f: false,
  flat: false,
  E: false,
  error: false,
  V: false,
  verbose: false,
  s: false,
  soft: false,
  help: false,
  h: false,
  u: 1,
  up: 1,
  '$0': 'copyfiles',
  e: undefined }

and in ^13:

./copyfiles /tmp/a.js /tmp/b.js -u1
{ _: [ '/tmp/a.js', '/tmp/b.js' ],
  u: 1,
  up: 1,
  '$0': 'copyfiles' }

Glancing at the usage, I don't think that'll be a problem (since it'll be undefined instead of false).

Here's the full changelog.

@@ -27,6 +27,6 @@
"devDependencies": {
"rimraf": "^2.2.6",
"tape": "^4.6.0",
"tap-spec": "^4.1.1"
"tap-spec": "^5.0.0"
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here's the Changelog - I don't think this will affect this project.

@calvinmetcalf
Copy link
Owner

thanks lemme take a look

@calvinmetcalf calvinmetcalf merged commit 6ed4802 into calvinmetcalf:master Jul 9, 2019
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.

None yet

2 participants