Conversation
|
Hi @amarps. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a stackrox member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions 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/test-infra repository. |
|
/ok-to-test |
|
Images are ready for the commit at b6e2b1c. To use with deploy scripts, first |
|
i can't run |
|
/retest |
1 similar comment
|
/retest |
|
|
||
| result, ok := u.executableCache.Get(update.ImageID) | ||
| if !ok { | ||
| //#nosec G104 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should have a follow up PR to replace utils.Should with function that does not return error. Adding #nosec directives makes no sense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are tens of places where the return value is used. So there are two options: either implement two functions (Should without return value and ShouldErr with return value), or change the occurrences in this PR to _ = utils.Should(... instead of the comments.
|
@amarps: The following test failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
Please rebase to master as #3830 has been merged. |
|
Fixed by #3936 |
Description
Related to #3545, added gosec G104
Checklist
If any of these don't apply, please comment below.