Skip to content

ROX-33649: Fix misleading MISSING_SCAN_DATA message#19947

Open
sachaudh wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
fix/misleading-missing-scan-data-message
Open

ROX-33649: Fix misleading MISSING_SCAN_DATA message#19947
sachaudh wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
fix/misleading-missing-scan-data-message

Conversation

@sachaudh
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sachaudh sachaudh commented Apr 10, 2026 •
edited by atlassian bot
Loading

Description

Jira: ROX-33649

The MISSING_SCAN_DATA image note is set for any scan failure (network errors, layer fetch
failures, no scanner configured, etc.), but the UI message incorrectly said "Failed to get the
base OS information." This misleads users into investigating OS-related issues. A separate
OS_UNAVAILABLE note already handles the OS-specific case.

  • Updated missingScanData header to "Failed to get scan data."
  • Updated missingScanData body to generic, actionable guidance
  • osUnavailable message unchanged

Note: This is a targeted fix to stop users from going down the wrong path when investigating scan failures. It removes the misleading OS-specific wording but doesn't tell users the exact failure reason. A larger effort to improve scan error messaging (e.g. passing more specific error context from the backend through scan notes) should be tracked separately.

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

  • Existing unit tests in both WorkloadCves and VulnMgmt pass without modification (17/17 tests pass)
  • Tests compare against imageScanMessages.missingScanData by object reference, not string value
  • All consumers reference the message object by key, so the update propagates automatically

Screenshots

Before After

@sachaudh
fix(ui): genericize misleading MISSING_SCAN_DATA error message
4af2dfb 
ROX-33649: The missingScanData message incorrectly referenced
"base OS information" when MISSING_SCAN_DATA is set for any scan
failure (network errors, layer fetch failures, etc.), not just OS
detection. A separate OS_UNAVAILABLE note already handles the
OS-specific case. Update to generic messaging that matches the
existing node scan pattern.

Signed-off-by: Saif Chaudhry <schaudhr@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 10, 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

@sachaudh sachaudh changed the title ROX-33649: fix misleading MISSING_SCAN_DATA message ROX-33649: Fix misleading MISSING_SCAN_DATA message Apr 10, 2026
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov bot commented Apr 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 49.56%. Comparing base (2bc78b8) to head (4af2dfb).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #19947   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   49.55%   49.56%           
=======================================
  Files        2764     2764           
  Lines      208346   208357   +11     
=======================================
+ Hits       103254   103269   +15     
+ Misses      97437    97436    -1     
+ Partials     7655     7652    -3
Flag Coverage Δ
go-unit-tests 49.56% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️

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.

@sachaudh sachaudh requested review from dcaravel and jvdm April 10, 2026 17:27
@sachaudh sachaudh marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2026 17:28
@sachaudh sachaudh requested a review from a team as a code owner April 10, 2026 17:28
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Apr 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

🚀 Build Images Ready

Images are ready for commit 4af2dfb. To use with deploy scripts:

export MAIN_IMAGE_TAG=4.11.x-614-g4af2dfbaf6

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 10, 2026 •
edited
Loading

@sachaudh: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
ci/prow/gke-upgrade-tests 4af2dfb link false /test gke-upgrade-tests

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@sachaudh
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

sachaudh commented Apr 10, 2026

/retest

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

Reviewers

@bradr5 bradr5 bradr5 approved these changes

@jvdm jvdm Awaiting requested review from jvdm

@dcaravel dcaravel Awaiting requested review from dcaravel

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

area/ui

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@sachaudh @bradr5