Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[Snyk] Fix for 1 vulnerabilities #25

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[Snyk] Fix for 1 vulnerabilities #25

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mongoloidkhulmikuki366385
Copy link
Owner

This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.


Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `npm` dependencies of this project.

Changes included in this PR

  • Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
    • package.json
    • package-lock.json

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:
Severity Priority Score (*) Issue Breaking Change Exploit Maturity
high severity 661/1000
Why? Recently disclosed, Has a fix available, CVSS 7.5		 Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
SNYK-JS-INFLIGHT-6095116		 Yes No Known Exploit

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Commit messages
Package name: copy-webpack-plugin The new version differs by 40 commits.

See the full diff

Package name: linkinator The new version differs by 128 commits.

See the full diff

Package name: rimraf The new version differs by 46 commits.
  • 3b6b098 4.0.0
  • e0cffea ci: reduce workload even more
  • 0e6646d ci: remove unnecessary lint filter
  • 546e017 update action versions
  • 6d88a65 tone down benchmark intensity
  • 842a8d2 fix benchmark workflow yaml
  • 1b91697 chore: add copyright year to license
  • 08bbb06 rewrite in TS, export hybrid, update changelog, docs
  • 1b3f46e drop support for node versions below 14
  • 2e1f003 gh actions workflow for benchmarks
  • 52f9370 tests for retry-busy behavior
  • 188e3ed don't test on very old node versions
  • d1d5495 test for fix-eperm
  • e7501cd prettier formatting
  • 40f64ec windows: only fall back to move-remove when absolutely necessary
  • b6f7819 update tap
  • 99496cd test: run posix test on windows, why not?
  • 51d43c1 benchmarks
  • 6b8aa29 doc: correct os.tmp default
  • 4b228c9 do not ever actually try to rmdir /
  • 2442655 consolidate all the spellings of 'opt' into one
  • d4eec2e add cli script
  • 0c82d74 accept strings, arrays of strings, and no other types
  • ad4f2db Do not rimraf /, override with preserveRoot:false

See the full diff

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

Note: You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized Snyk to open fix PRs.

For more information:
🧐 View latest project report

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

🦉 Learn about vulnerability in an interactive lesson of Snyk Learn.

@performance-testing-bot Performance Testing Bot
Copy link

Unable to locate .performanceTestingBot config file

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated Pull Request Quantifier (deprecated)
Copy link

This PR has 6 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

Quantification details 

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +3 -3
Percentile : 2.4%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +3 -3

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@vizipi Vizipi
Copy link

vizipi bot commented Dec 1, 2023

Pull request analysis by VIZIPI

Below you will find who is the most qualified team member to review your code.
This analysis includes his/her work on the code included in this Pull request, in addition to their experience in code affected by these changes ( partly found within the list of potential missing files below )   Feedback always welcome

No other active qualified developers found to review these specific changes. You might consider involving more team members with these code segments.

Potential missing files from this Pull request

No commonly committed files found with a 40% threashold

Committed file ranks

(click to expand)
  • 99.99%[package-lock.json]
  • 100.00%[package.json]

    • Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Reviewers
    No reviews
    Assignees
    No one assigned
    Labels
    Extra Small
    Projects
    None yet
    Milestone
    No milestone
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
    2 participants
    @mongoloidkhulmikuki366385 @snyk-bot