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

Better handling of custom secrets files in badsecrets #1864

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 17, 2024

Conversation

liquidsec
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93%. Comparing base (8c65e98) to head (3f1e574).
Report is 7 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
bbot/modules/badsecrets.py 67% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##             dev   #1864   +/-   ##
=====================================
- Coverage     93%     93%   -0%     
=====================================
  Files        354     354           
  Lines      27398   27399    +1     
=====================================
- Hits       25286   25263   -23     
- Misses      2112    2136   +24     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@TheTechromancer TheTechromancer mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2024
1 task
@liquidsec liquidsec merged commit 3ff9e8e into dev Oct 17, 2024
8 checks passed
@liquidsec liquidsec deleted the badsecrets-customsecrets-tweak branch October 17, 2024 19:46
@liquidsec liquidsec changed the title better handling of custom secrets files Better handling of custom secrets files Oct 18, 2024
@liquidsec liquidsec changed the title Better handling of custom secrets files Better handling of custom secrets files in badsecrets Oct 18, 2024
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.

3 participants