Add fixed packages in vulnerabilities details in packages endpoint.#831
Conversation
656708a to
e20221d
Compare
e20221d to
a029347
Compare
TG1999
changed the title
tdruez
left a comment
tdruez
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like you have included changes completely unrelated to the goal of this PR:
- Pagination
- Ordering
| queryset = Package.objects.all().order_by("id") | ||
| serializer_class = PackageSerializer | ||
| paginate_by = 50 | ||
| pagination.PageNumberPagination.page_size = 10 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems very wrong plus it's unrelated to this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not ideal to combine multiple un-merged and un-related branches for the code review process.
9de782b to
bca4ad0
Compare
| fixed_packages = self.get_fixed_packages(package=package) | ||
| qs = package.vulnerabilities.filter(packagerelatedvulnerability__fix=False) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a bit confusing, packagerelatedvulnerability__fix is used with True in get_fixed_packages then overridden with False here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This qs is to get those vulnerabilities on the package that affects this that' why packagerelatedvulnerability__fix is set to False, whereas get_fixed_packages sends all the packages that matches name, namespace, type, qualifiers of that package and also fixes the vulnerability that's why it is set to True
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I get that, the confusing part is your approach of reusing the same base qs and overriding an existing lookup.
bca4ad0 to
1909039
Compare
TG1999
changed the title
1909039 to
bf235bb
Compare
TG1999
changed the title
bf235bb to
b3140dc
Compare
…-org#809 Reference: aboutcode-org#809 Signed-off-by: Tushar Goel <tushar.goel.dav@gmail.com>
b3140dc to
050d580
Compare
2 participants
No description provided.