Skip to content

Conversation

@oz123
Copy link
Contributor

@oz123 oz123 commented Mar 30, 2025

Since safety now requires a login and it's breaking the API we used, we can move it to a "plugin" we install.
This PR isn't adding a new scan command. Instead for pipenv users it keeps the "check" interface, but under the hood,
it will call the new scan command.
The new scan command understands Pipefile.lock, so there is no need to export to requirements.txt before scanning.
Hence, it directly reads it. Also, the scan command will only work if the user will configure ~/.safety/auth.ini.
Also, it does not parse safety output, instead it delivers it as is.

The PR is quite radical and is breaking a lot of things at once,

oz123 added 4 commits March 20, 2025 22:37
Signed-off-by: Oz Tiram <oz.tiram@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Oz Tiram <oz.tiram@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Oz Tiram <oz.tiram@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Oz Tiram <oz.tiram@gmail.com>
@oz123 oz123 requested a review from matteius March 30, 2025 21:39
@matteius
Copy link
Member

I recommend keeping the check command intact as it was since it still works with the existing database, and support the scan command as an optional flag or via pipenv scan.

@oz123 oz123 closed this Apr 23, 2025
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