-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
refactor: replacing-check-with-scan #666
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Thanks for opening a Pull Request. If you want to perform a review write a comment saying: @ansys-reviewer-bot review |
scanning-settings: | ||
max-depth: 6 | ||
exclude: | ||
- "node_modules" | ||
- "lib/other/**" | ||
- "**/*.js" |
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.
Also, not sure if should add something else here. I thought about the venv
folders, but presumable, those are covered below under the python
section?
Anyway, if anyone have suggestions, I'm happy to heard them. :)
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.
It's not as simple as it looks...
The output is different and thus affects A LOT the python files used to postprocess the data from bandit. I would prevent doing this change for now. I have a local branch where I was doing this... we can talk offline.
Interesting... Yeah. I'm happy to help! Ping me tomorrow when available :) |
As the title, using
scan
instead of check.Close #641
Notes
I have keep the
--output screen
because... I guess otherwise it is not printed? Anyways, I'm not 100% sure on this. Feel free to remove it and keep the output to json only.The
||
added to avoid failing on error.