additional affected:ranges entry suggestion
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 271
- Forks
- 129
- Avg merge
- 3h 46m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
So we have
affected:ranges:events:introduced
affected:ranges:events:fixed
affected:ranges:events:last_affected
affected:ranges:events:limit
but we're missing a "notaffected" or "unaffected" as in "we checked and we're not affected at all", e.g. data from the CISA log4j repo:
https://github.com/kurtseifried/log4j-affected-db/blob/develop/data/cisagov.yml
cves:
cve-2021-4104:
investigated: true
affected_versions: []
fixed_versions: []
unaffected_versions: - '>= 1.0.0'
cve-2021-44228:
investigated: true
affected_versions: []
fixed_versions: []
unaffected_versions: - '>= 1.0.0'
So I'd like to propose a "notaffected" tag.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files or tests are named. Start by reviewing the existing affected:ranges entries and the linked CISA YAML example, then determine the intended semantics of a notaffected tag. Done means the schema behavior for explicitly checked, unaffected ranges is defined and validated.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- yaml
- Domain
- backend
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100