-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 538
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
fix: project name when using assets-project-name flag #5077
fix: project name when using assets-project-name flag #5077
Conversation
|
cd1d541
to
7be7621
Compare
@@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ export function getProjectName( | |||
return scannedProject.meta.gradleProjectName; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
if (meta.assetsProjectName) { | |||
return scannedProject.depTree?.name; | |||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
question (non-blocking): Is it desired behaviour for this to return an undefined
or do we want it always to return a string?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, it's desired, registry has a default flow that will handle an undefined
projName
4e6f907
to
63b8238
Compare
@37IulianPopovici closing this stale PR. Please re-open if necessary. |
63b8238
to
dce24dc
Compare
Reopened: we will get this merged after sending an announcement to all customers that use the |
dce24dc
to
37b3551
Compare
Pull Request Submission
The pull request must:
feat:
orfix:
, others might be used in rare occasions as well, if there is no need to document the changes in the release notes. The changes or fixes should be described in detail in the commit message for the changelog & release notes.Pull Request Review
All pull requests must undergo a thorough review process before being merged.
The review process of the code PR should include code review, testing, and any necessary feedback or revisions.
Pull request reviews of functionality developed in other teams only review the given documentation and test reports.
Manual testing will not be performed by the reviewing team, and is the responsibility of the author of the PR.
For Node projects: It’s important to make sure changes in
package.json
are also affectingpackage-lock.json
correctly.If a dependency is not necessary, don’t add it.
When adding a new package as a dependency, make sure that the change is absolutely necessary. We would like to refrain from adding new dependencies when possible.
Documentation PRs in gitbook are reviewed by Snyk's content team. They will also advise on the best phrasing and structuring if needed.
Pull Request Approval
Once a pull request has been reviewed and all necessary revisions have been made, it is approved for merging into
the main codebase. The merging of the code PR is performed by the code owners, the merging of the documentation PR
by our content writers.
What does this PR do?
Fixes a bug regarding the usage of the --assets-project-name flag
Without this fix, when using the above flag, the name of the monitored project it's going to be:
{{ProjectNameFromAssetsJsonFile}}:{{targetFile}}
, which is the default behaviour.With this fix, when using --assets-project-name flag flag, project name will be:
{{ProjectNameFromAssetsJsonFile}}
Risk assessment
Even though project naming is a sensible place, this PR is not imposing any risk. The flag it's only used for dotnet projects.
Where should the reviewer start?
How should this be manually tested?
For manual testing, this fixture can be used along with
snyk monitor --assets-project-name
Any background context you want to provide?
Client is complaining that
--assets-project-name
flag it's broken since CLI v.1.1225.0. That version included a fix for project naming along multiple ecosystems, but never for the--assets-project-name
flagWhat are the relevant tickets?
SUP-2285
Screenshots
Additional questions