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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[Snyk] Fix for 1 vulnerabilities #41

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: trunk
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[Snyk] Fix for 1 vulnerabilities #41

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

naiba4
Copy link
Owner

@naiba4 naiba4 commented Jan 30, 2024

This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.


Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `npm` dependencies of this project.

Changes included in this PR

  • Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
    • package.json
⚠️ Warning 
Failed to update the package-lock.json, please update manually before merging.

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:
Severity Priority Score (*) Issue Breaking Change Exploit Maturity
medium severity 141/1000
Why? Confidentiality impact: None, Integrity impact: None, Availability impact: High, Scope: Unchanged, Exploit Maturity: Proof of Concept, User Interaction (UI): None, Privileges Required (PR): None, Attack Complexity: Low, Attack Vector: Local, EPSS: 0.01055, Social Trends: No, Days since published: 61, Reachable: No, Transitive dependency: Yes, Is Malicious: No, Business Criticality: High, Provider Urgency: Medium, Package Popularity Score: 99, Impact: 5.99, Likelihood: 2.35, Score Version: V5		 Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116		 Yes Proof of Concept

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Commit messages
Package name: @storybook/react-webpack5 The new version differs by 250 commits.

See the full diff

Package name: appium The new version differs by 56 commits.

See the full diff

Package name: lerna The new version differs by 82 commits.

See the full diff

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

Note: You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized Snyk to open fix PRs.

For more information:
🧐 View latest project report

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

🦉 Learn about vulnerability in an interactive lesson of Snyk Learn.

@snyk-bot
fix: package.json to reduce vulnerabilities
06bd51c 
The following vulnerabilities are fixed with an upgrade:
- https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116
@vercel Vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
gutenberg ❌ Failed (Inspect) Jan 30, 2024 5:33pm
gutenberg-wd9x ❌ Failed (Inspect) Jan 30, 2024 5:33pm

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated Pull Request Quantifier (deprecated)
Copy link

This PR has 6 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +3 -3
Percentile : 2.4%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +3 -3

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

Warning: Type of PR label mismatch

To merge this PR, it requires exactly 1 label indicating the type of PR. Other labels are optional and not being checked here.

  • Type-related labels to choose from: [Type] Automated Testing, [Type] Breaking Change, [Type] Bug, [Type] Build Tooling, [Type] Code Quality, [Type] Copy, [Type] Developer Documentation, [Type] Enhancement, [Type] Experimental, [Type] Feature, [Type] New API, [Type] Task, [Type] Technical Prototype, [Type] Performance, [Type] Project Management, [Type] Regression, [Type] Security, [Type] WP Core Ticket, Backport from WordPress Core.
  • Labels found: Extra Small.

Read more about Type labels in Gutenberg. Don't worry if you don't have the required permissions to add labels; the PR reviewer should be able to help with the task.

@guardrails GuardRails
Copy link

guardrails bot commented Jan 30, 2024

⚠️ We detected 3 security issues in this pull request:

Vulnerable Libraries (3)
Severity Details
High pkg:npm/@storybook/react-webpack5@7.2.2 (t) upgrade to: > 7.2.2
High pkg:npm/appium@2.0.0 (t) upgrade to: > 2.0.0
High pkg:npm/lerna@7.1.4 (t) upgrade to: > 7.1.4

More info on how to fix Vulnerable Libraries in JavaScript.

👉 Go to the dashboard for detailed results.

📥 Happy? Share your feedback with us.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Extra Small
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@naiba4 @snyk-bot