Add optional detectionTool field to CodeTF result
#19
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
drdavella
changed the title
detectionTool field to CodeTF ChangeSetdetectionTool field to CodeTF result
gilday
approved these changes
Mar 7, 2024
Comment on lines
+25
to
+26
| "ruleId": "ID of the tool vendor rule that detected the issue", (required) | ||
| "ruleName": "Name of the tool vendor rule that detected the issue", (required) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider grouping these inside a new, required rule object that we can add to if needed.
nahsra
requested changes
Mar 8, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This doesn't entirely address #17 but I think it adds a small, required set of fields that we definitely want.
In a subsequent change we can add
findingswhich offers details about which findings were remediated and which were not.We can build upon this as necessary but for now I hope we can come to an agreement on the field names.
Part of the goal here is to enable consistent reporting of tool remediation by upstream tools. Rather than encoding things like the tool name in the
summarywe can enable consistent handling.