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

Allow carving only #487

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 10, 2023
Merged

Allow carving only #487

merged 1 commit into from Jan 10, 2023

Conversation

dorpvom
Copy link
Contributor

@dorpvom dorpvom commented Jan 3, 2023

  • Added command line option
  • Applied early exit before extraction (@martonilles)

@dorpvom
Copy link
Contributor Author

dorpvom commented Jan 3, 2023

Regarding depth:

Yes, using this obviously enforces depth = 1. I would add a logger.debug for this as it is trivial when understanding the option. It would also be possible to make it a warning if depth is not the default, and one can assume it was changed on purpose.
I would probably put that into the cli method in unblob/cli.py, but I'm happy for suggestions.

@vlaci
Copy link
Contributor

vlaci commented Jan 4, 2023

Thanks for sending this PR!
I see that you already had some discussion with the guys in #486 about this feature. I am sure they'll look at it as soon as they are able.

@qkaiser qkaiser added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 5, 2023
@qkaiser qkaiser self-assigned this Jan 5, 2023
@qkaiser
Copy link
Contributor

qkaiser commented Jan 5, 2023

@dorpvom could you clean up your commit history and provide a single commit ? I see changes within the same code blocks in processing.py from both a875789 and f5a9490. Also d658210 should not be there.

We recommend using semantic commit messages, yours could be feat: add carve-only capability with corresponding command line switch (-s). Do not hesitate to provide a detailed explanation of what you did within the commit message body, this is how we document things.

@dorpvom
Copy link
Contributor Author

dorpvom commented Jan 5, 2023

@dorpvom could you clean up your commit history and provide a single commit ? I see changes within the same code blocks in processing.py from both a875789 and f5a9490. Also d658210 should not be there.

We recommend using semantic commit messages, yours could be feat: add carve-only capability with corresponding command line switch (-s). Do not hesitate to provide a detailed explanation of what you did within the commit message body, this is how we document things.

@qkaiser So I'm not usually in bed with rebasing and force-pushing but I guess I got this history where you want it. Any additional requests?

…extraction) along with matching functionality
@qkaiser qkaiser merged commit 534ba31 into onekey-sec:main Jan 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants