fix: default limit to max vulnerable paths per vuln, add override option #5454
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In CLI-261 an out-of-memory condition occurs when trying to report SCA findings on a container test. This happens due to an unusually large number of dependency paths to some vulnerabilities.
Such a large number of paths is unlikely to be useful or helpful (happy to entertain arguments to the contrary).
To mitigate this, vulnerable paths is limited to a maximum of 20 per vulnerability, which can be raised or lowered using a new --max-vulnerable-paths option.
If the user has specifically requested all vulnerable paths with --show-vulnerable-paths=all, this takes precedence and the path limit is ignored, even if specified with --max-vulnerable-paths.
As a result OOM issues will be much less likely to occur with default settings, and users interested in vulnerable path information have more flexibility to mitigate memory issues.
While this does change the default behavior of SCA tests, users still have the option to adjust the limits, and it's worth exploring how actionable & useful so many paths per finding really are.
TODOs if this looks like a generally agreeable solution (looking for 30% feedback here):
Pull Request Submission
Please check the boxes once done.
The pull request must:
feat:
orfix:
, others might be used in rare occasions as well, if there is no need to document the changes in the release notes. The changes or fixes should be described in detail in the commit message for the changelog & release notes.Pull Request Review
All pull requests must undergo a thorough review process before being merged.
The review process of the code PR should include code review, testing, and any necessary feedback or revisions.
Pull request reviews of functionality developed in other teams only review the given documentation and test reports.
Manual testing will not be performed by the reviewing team, and is the responsibility of the author of the PR.
For Node projects: It’s important to make sure changes in
package.json
are also affectingpackage-lock.json
correctly.If a dependency is not necessary, don’t add it.
When adding a new package as a dependency, make sure that the change is absolutely necessary. We would like to refrain from adding new dependencies when possible.
Documentation PRs in gitbook are reviewed by Snyk's content team. They will also advise on the best phrasing and structuring if needed.
Pull Request Approval
Once a pull request has been reviewed and all necessary revisions have been made, it is approved for merging into
the main codebase. The merging of the code PR is performed by the code owners, the merging of the documentation PR
by our content writers.
What does this PR do?
Where should the reviewer start?
How should this be manually tested?
Any background context you want to provide?
What are the relevant tickets?
Screenshots
Additional questions