Explicitly list out tsec exemption #116460
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This version of tsec removes a few false positives around Workers and adds support for restricting unsafe functions from the safevalues package
This implies a few things: - tsec's output is clear so it can be included as a CI check - code introducing new violations need to update the exemption list, making it clear there is something security-sensitive about the code
Contributor
Author
|
I am not sure how I can update tsec's version with the current checks
@jrieken Could you help ? |
Member
|
@engelsdamien We are now more strict wrt yarn.lock-modification. I have made the tsec update on master (ed10bfb) and things should work now |
Contributor
Author
|
No worries, thanks. Going forward, I will avoid updating packages in PRs and file an issue instead. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes #116459
This implies a few things:
making it clear there is something security-sensitive about the code