-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
Replace 'request' with 'require' in go.mod to allow downstream fix. #49
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Hmmm I think the way these vulnerability scanners work is that they scan the go.sum for references to the package versions with the CVE present. I'm pretty sure this is going to make it break again if there is still reference to github.com/ulikunitz/xz v0.5.6.
Can you investigate a little and find out?
Thanks @mishas
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.
The way Go works, is it's taking the largest version (that's still considered to be backward compatible) from the go.sum file.
If the vulnerability scanner is any good, it should do the same...
I can only speak towards Dependabot (the Github built-in solution), which is what I'm using, and it will works correctly.
No idea what others are using, and how that will stack up to the challenge.
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.
Hey @mishas,
It's been something I've been meaning to do for a while anyway so have started on the task this evening of removing the actual majority of the archiver dependencies, which would include xz anyway.
If you're desperate for the above change we can work this one through but I think I should be able to get a release of the removal in the next few days out for you.
If you'd like to contribute to the code or review you can find here #50. It's almost there but will need some eyes on it and some new coverage.
Thanks
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.
Hey @fergusstrange ,
I'm not desperate about the above change, I just made it because I thought the previous change (#42) was incorrect, and wanted to fix it.
Feel free to close this PR, and I'll look into reviewing #50.
Thanks.