-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
[BUG] Unreliable result when using STDIN / conda list #139
Comments
I have the same problem! Piping The best result is given when running EDIT: I've been doing some experiments after installing the following test environment: name: example
channels:
- conda-forge
dependencies:
- python =3.10
- flask =2.2.2
- numpy =1.21.5
and concluded:
cc @bhamail / @DarthHater |
Can confirm. With the conda environment selected, running
scans the packages found with
scan all packages found by conda (from |
@vvoutilainen, @epassaro, the key difference is that This is the reason why there are more packages on the conda side (likely due to non-python conda packages), but on the other hand there are usually less known vulnerabilities on the OSS index for conda packages compared to pypi packages. Example
If you are looking for a way of using
would do, and does not even require to ever activate the conda environment explicitly. The only assumption is that |
Describe the bug
I'm tying to test / use jake 3.0.0 in a conda environment, but seem to get an inconsistent result (or perhaps I do not understand it correctly). When having a conda environment active with only jake installed in it, the basic command will give me 52 audited dependencies and 2 vulnerabilities. If I repeat the same with in combination with a
conda list
, I get 58 audited dependencies and 0 vulnerabilities. And no matter what, in combination withconda list
I always get 0 vulnerabilities, for any environment, which seems inaccurate. If I need to supply more info, please let me know.To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
conda activate [my_env]
jake ddt
And the other approach:
conda activate [my_env]
conda list --explicit --md5 | jake ddt -t CONDA
Expected behavior
For the first command I'd say I miss 6 audited dependencies (there are 58 dependencies in the active environment), and for the latter command I'd say I miss the reported 2 vulnerabilities.
Screenshots
First command:
Second command:
Desktop (please complete the following information):
Additional context
Also
conda list -n [my_other_env] --explicit --md5 | jake ddt -t CONDA
gives 0 vulnerabilities for any environment I try (of which some have vulnerabilities). The amount of audited dependencies does change, so that seems correct. I've installed jake 3.0.0 via conda from conda-forge.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: