Replies: 35 comments 1 reply
-
The ability to specify a different registry than the .npmrc file. Mine specifies a custom registry, but I'd still like to use the normal one when running audit-resolve and check. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@CADBOT interesting. This uses npm under the hood and it's intended (I started the process) as a future npm audit feature, so not sure where to go from here. I'll see if npm accepts a cli argument to override repo url, and I'll pass it through in that case. Got other thoughts? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
There is a registry flag that can be used: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Wrote up a quick PR that has a working example |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Is there a chance to skip/ignore all DevDependencies? I know there is one for |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
currently you can ignore low severity automatically, but not dev dependencies. I'd consider adding this as an option defined in the audit-resolve file. How would you want to ignore them? In resolve-audit or in check-audit, or both? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I thought both, to be honest. And why not do it as an cli argument? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
audit-resolve file is where this tool puts your decisions about what's safe to ignore etc. so it made sense to me to keep it there. Any reasons skipping dev dependencies should be treated as unrelated? Should a run with dev and without dev share the same audit-resolve file in your opinion? I'm not sure if I see a situation where that'd be useful, but happy to get feedback! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Any chance for an option for longer remind timeframe. 24 hours can be difficult to deal with. Propose
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Public announcement: Remind option will not change, but I'm planning to add expiry to ignore. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@stewartduffy npm-audit-resolver@next supports expiring ignores, which effectively does what you wanted. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
FWIW I definitely like the idea of being able to ignore all advisories for dev dependencies. How about allowing certain packages to be ignored? Guess you have the same problem again of how to handle advisories that apply both to ignored packages and not-ignored packages. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hey @naugtur sorry I dropped out of this conversation for ages - I got pulled on a number of different projects and got busy. I will update out app to use npm-audit-resolver@next today and give feedback on how we go. Thanks for this! Sounds like it will do just the trick. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@naugtur I just tried it with the expiring ignore for 1 month. Works well thanks! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Suggestion: possibility to have Basically a Reasoning: we currently ignore all low severity vulnerabilities. We have e.g. a dev dependency Having an audit-resolve.json that contains many low severity issues makes people not care about it, and not care about changing it, so much. If it contained only serious issues, changing it would be a thing that requires careful consideration. Kind of a duplicate of the earlier request about ignoring devDependencies. I think that also for that use case it might be better to keep dev dependencies out of audit-resolve.json, and instead add the ability to limit checking in check-audit to ignore alerts from dev dependencies.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@coreysnyder that's definitely interesting. But there's a few ways to solve this. Let's pop out to an issue just for this and discuss. Please open the issue on the audit-resolver-core repo. I'd like to think about ways we could reference other files with rules. We'll discuss more in the issue. Thanks for bringing this up! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Feature request: calling "audit-resolve" (or "audit-resolve --clean") removes decisions from the json that are no longer relevant. Example After an "npm audit fix" i want to see the whitelist get shorter, i do not want to update all decision timestamps, which happens if i empty the file and call audit-resolve again. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@ion2s-JM I can relate. Good idea. Please create a separate issue where we could discuss details. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Feature request: Make 'resolve-audit' exit with a non-zero exit code if it is run from a CI server, potentially by using https://www.npmjs.com/package/is-ci or similar. I've noticed that if a CI server is incorrectly setup to call 'resolve-audit' rather than 'check-audit', then it will exit with a 0 exit code regardless of whether or not there vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed. This means the audit will appear to pass. I can't think of any use case where you would deliberately run 'resolve-audit' from a Ci server. Happy to try raising a PR for this if you give the go ahead. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@jmac105 interesting idea. Instead of pulling in a new dependency, I'd rather exit(1) every time. What do you think? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Potentially, looking again at the output from the CI server I wonder if there's an exit condition check that could be added somewhere? I'm interested to know what's causing it to exit here and no just hang waiting for input that will never come?
If I run resolve-audit locally and ctrl-c out of it when it prompts me for input it recognises that and exits with code 2, hard to replicate the behaviour seen on the ci server |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
please move to a separate issue and we can discuss in more detail there |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Small but nice usability improvement would be to use a human-readable date for expires. Would make reviewing |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yarn now offers a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@Undistraction all flags you set on check-audit are passed down to yarn (except for the yarn flag itself :) ) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@naugtur Ah! Amazing. Thank you. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'd love to be able to add a comment about why I chose to ignore a warning for both myself and teammates who might wonder about it in the future. :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@emilong That's one of the oldest pending features. I think I added the reason field to the JSON schema already, but didn't come up with a good idea how to take the input without making the process longer for ppeople not using it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello @naugtur ! It would be nice to have the Namely suppose the following npm script:
^ it just fails for any not yet resolved issue (however logs |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The whole point of check-audit is to only return 0 when npm audit returns positive. What exactly would it do in all cases? When something is found, when something should be ignored etc. Want to work on listing a sort of user story with all permutations? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Request features here. Explanations as to why it'd be useful very welcome 😉
This was converted from an issue so it's a bit messy
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions