feat: add field to ignore-provider-date for long term broken providers #579
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Signed-off-by: Christopher Phillips <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Phillips <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Phillips <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Christopher Phillips <[email protected]>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This PR adds a new field to the grype-db config:
build.ignore-provider-dateThis field will be used when calculating the earliest timestamp when building the db.
grype-dbwill ignore user specified providers that may have been broken for extended periods of time. This allows theearliestdate to be calculated for a more recent provider. This calculation would update the db date to be in compliance with checks likemax-allowed-built-agewhen running https://github.com/anchore/grype.Discussion
It looks like we have some overlap with
v5/v6on calculating this.I added a placeholder in the v6
Archiverfor where the config should be injected given this change.I've marked this as draft for a team sync later today at standup to see what people think about decoupling this behavior since the code paths where this call exists are a little different.