Skip to content

ROX-33368: fix node scanning vex match#19211

Draft
stehessel wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
ROX-33368/fix-node-scanning-vex-match
Draft

ROX-33368: fix node scanning vex match#19211
stehessel wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
ROX-33368/fix-node-scanning-vex-match

Conversation

@stehessel
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

change me!

User-facing documentation

Testing and quality

  • the change is production ready: the change is GA, or otherwise the functionality is gated by a feature flag
  • CI results are inspected

Automated testing

  • added unit tests
  • added e2e tests
  • added regression tests
  • added compatibility tests
  • modified existing tests

How I validated my change

change me!

@openshift-ci
Copy link

openshift-ci bot commented Feb 26, 2026

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

@rhacs-bot
Copy link
Contributor

rhacs-bot commented Feb 26, 2026

Images are ready for the commit at 501c0d5.

To use with deploy scripts, first export MAIN_IMAGE_TAG=4.11.x-191-g501c0d5fe6.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 26, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.48485% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 49.59%. Comparing base (11d580d) to head (501c0d5).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/scanners/scannerv4/nodescan_convert.go 97.72% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #19211      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   49.56%   49.59%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        2675     2675              
  Lines      201820   201888      +68     
==========================================
+ Hits       100028   100118      +90     
+ Misses      94335    94302      -33     
- Partials     7457     7468      +11     
Flag Coverage Δ
go-unit-tests 49.59% <98.48%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Copy link
Contributor

@sourcery-ai sourcery-ai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey - I've left some high level feedback:

  • In dedupeNodeVulns, all entries with an empty Cve will be collapsed into a single record because the map key is vuln.GetCve(); consider either skipping deduplication for empty CVE values or keying on a different stable identifier to avoid unintentionally merging unrelated vulnerabilities.
  • The new Infof log in sendNodeIndex for the new-format RHCOS branch will fire for every such node and may be noisy in larger clusters; consider downgrading this to Debugf or gating it behind a once-only log if it’s primarily for diagnostics.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- In `dedupeNodeVulns`, all entries with an empty `Cve` will be collapsed into a single record because the map key is `vuln.GetCve()`; consider either skipping deduplication for empty CVE values or keying on a different stable identifier to avoid unintentionally merging unrelated vulnerabilities.
- The new `Infof` log in `sendNodeIndex` for the new-format RHCOS branch will fire for every such node and may be noisy in larger clusters; consider downgrading this to `Debugf` or gating it behind a once-only log if it’s primarily for diagnostics.

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants