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

[SECENG-859] update circle-policy-agent version #805

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 9, 2022

Conversation

sagar-connect
Copy link
Contributor

@sagar-connect sagar-connect commented Nov 3, 2022

Ticket: SECENG-859

Checklist

=========

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have checked for similar issues and haven't found anything relevant.
  • This is not a security issue (which should be reported here: https://circleci.com/security/)
  • I have read Contribution Guidelines.

Internal Checklist

  • I am requesting a review from my own team as well as the owning team
  • I have a plan in place for the monitoring of the changes that I am making (this can include new monitors, logs to be aware of, etc...)

Changes

=======

  • updated dependencies

(Before) Snyk CLI result
Tested 290 dependencies for known issues, found 2 issues, 65 vulnerable paths.

(After) Snyk CLI result
Tested 290 dependencies for known issues, no vulnerable paths found.

@sagar-connect sagar-connect marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2022 15:59
@sagar-connect sagar-connect requested a review from a team as a code owner November 3, 2022 15:59
Copy link
Contributor

@michael-webster michael-webster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you document the plan to test this? I see the box checked, but are there more details than that?

@sagar-connect
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michael-webster
Since the change is an updated library to fix the CVEs, one of the expected outcomes would be see reduced known vulnerabilities in the code, the result of this test is posted in the PR description, both before and after.

To make sure we are not breaking anything with this change, we are relying on the unit-tests (there are enough in this repo), and they are still passing.

@michael-webster
Copy link
Contributor

Is there any way to validate the client continues to behave as expected e.g. locally building the cli and testing with that for example?

Copy link
Contributor

@michael-webster michael-webster left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving this assuming a test with a local build to confirm behavior happens.

@sagar-connect
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tested with locally built binary on Linux.
Verified version and policy fetch commands.

@sagar-connect sagar-connect merged commit 7cd9cc4 into master Nov 9, 2022
@sagar-connect sagar-connect deleted the SECENG-859-update-agent branch November 9, 2022 15:44
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.

5 participants