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: experimental tuple fuzzing setup #1873

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Aug 15, 2022
Merged

Conversation

yashugarg
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@yashugarg yashugarg marked this pull request as draft August 6, 2022 23:25
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 6, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #1873 (be87a0a) into main (376d996) will decrease coverage by 1.30%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1873      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.79%   88.48%   -1.31%     
==========================================
  Files         316      316              
  Lines        7269     7269              
  Branches     1184     1184              
==========================================
- Hits         6527     6432      -95     
- Misses        479      581     +102     
+ Partials      263      256       -7     
Flag Coverage Δ
longtests 78.95% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
win-longtests 87.46% <ø> (-1.33%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
cve_bin_tool/nvd_api.py 24.00% <0.00%> (-52.80%) ⬇️
test/test_nvd_api.py 50.87% <0.00%> (-40.36%) ⬇️
cve_bin_tool/data_sources/osv_source.py 90.37% <0.00%> (-2.14%) ⬇️
cve_bin_tool/cvedb.py 86.68% <0.00%> (-1.03%) ⬇️
cve_bin_tool/cli.py 77.03% <0.00%> (+0.37%) ⬆️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@yashugarg yashugarg marked this pull request as ready for review August 14, 2022 13:07
@yashugarg
Copy link
Contributor Author

yashugarg commented Aug 15, 2022

@terriko does this need any change before merging?

Copy link
Contributor

@terriko terriko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we should definitely go with the "merge early, merge often" route for fuzzing experimentation. Sorry it took me a while to merge -- I just missed that you'd resolved the linter problem because the 3.7 stuff failed.

@terriko terriko merged commit 661c796 into intel:main Aug 15, 2022
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

3 participants