-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
test(COD-4237): only check if the list of expected is not 0 #206
Conversation
3d1011c
to
225f8b1
Compare
225f8b1
to
92da6b6
Compare
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ jobs: | |||
working-directory: artifact | |||
run: | | |||
export SCA_RESULTS=`jq '.runs | map (.results | length) | add' sca.sarif` | |||
expectedScaResults=5 | |||
expectedScaResults=4 |
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.
Should we leave this as an exact number instead of following the codesec approach that checks whether the expectedScaResults is just not 0?
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.
Yes, we can do that in case the number of vulns reported is changing again. We did like that in the past to check that both SCA and SAST are working as expected.
92da6b6
to
32a0f8f
Compare
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.
lgtm
32a0f8f
to
6db386e
Compare
The SCA scan now finds one less finding than before on the test code.