cve-bin-tool
cve-bin-tool copied to clipboard
intel
feat: added purl generation for go parser
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 80.68%. Comparing base (
d6cbe40) to head (c0f7cae). Report is 67 commits behind head on main.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| cve_bin_tool/parsers/go.py | 65.21% | 3 Missing and 5 partials :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3833 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 75.41% 80.68% +5.26%
==========================================
Files 808 812 +4
Lines 11983 12201 +218
Branches 1598 1651 +53
==========================================
+ Hits 9037 9844 +807
+ Misses 2593 1922 -671
- Partials 353 435 +82
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| longtests | 75.69% <71.42%> (+0.28%) |
:arrow_up: |
| win-longtests | 78.68% <71.42%> (?) |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Also, sorry about the weird ordering of comments. I jumped around in this file a lot.
Overall, I've got the gist of what we want here. But do you have anything specific regarding the logs? I was thinking, maybe a single debug log if purl can't be generated.
Overall, I've got the gist of what we want here. But do you have anything specific regarding the logs? I was thinking, maybe a single debug log if purl can't be generated.
I'd skip the logs entirely unless we have a use case for them. I suspect we'll have more use cases for logs when we get to the part of using the purl data and anything we do here would just add noise. (especially since I think it'll be the norm that we generate a PURL that includes an UNKNOWN in the vendor field.)