Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix: TypeError in fuzzing reports of fuzz_renv_lock #4052

Closed
joydeep049 opened this issue Apr 18, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #4061
Closed

fix: TypeError in fuzzing reports of fuzz_renv_lock #4052

joydeep049 opened this issue Apr 18, 2024 · 6 comments · Fixed by #4061

Comments

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor

joydeep049 commented Apr 18, 2024

Related #4045
Issue related to error related to the most recent run of the fuzzers in https://github.com/intel/cve-bin-tool/actions/runs/8684795394
18 04 2024_23 22 59_REC

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor Author

joydeep049 commented Apr 18, 2024

On further investigation, it seems the RenvLockBuilder is missing a required argument file_path. Should be easy enough to fix.
Waiting for @terriko to approve.
Should I work on this or is it better for new contributors to handle?

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor Author

I am working on this

@terriko
Copy link
Contributor

terriko commented Apr 22, 2024

I'm not sure what you needed me to approve here? Did you mean you were waiting for me to tag it or something? I'm confused.

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor Author

joydeep049 commented Apr 22, 2024

I'm not sure what you needed me to approve here? Did you mean you were waiting for me to tag it or something? I'm confused.

Yes like whenever I file a new issue I always kind of wait for you to look at it once. Just in case I'm wrong somewhere.
Also wait for you to tag it :)

@terriko
Copy link
Contributor

terriko commented Apr 23, 2024

Yes like whenever I file a new issue I always kind of wait for you to look at it once. Just in case I'm wrong somewhere. Also wait for you to tag it :)

hah, that is terrible practice for open source in general. As an issue filer, you get to be your own source of truth! Own it! Own the possibility being wrong on the internet sometimes! (It happens to all of us, and the effort involved in saying "whoops" and closing a bug is pretty minimal.)

You can actually choose tags by using the issue templates. If you think it's helpful to have a set template for fuzzing issues (which it probably would be?) you can make a PR to create what you need. The existing templates are in this directory: https://github.com/intel/cve-bin-tool/tree/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE . For now, you can actually use the docstrings issue template, erase everything in it, and you'll still get the "good first issue" tag.

@joydeep049
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes like whenever I file a new issue I always kind of wait for you to look at it once. Just in case I'm wrong somewhere. Also wait for you to tag it :)

hah, that is terrible practice for open source in general. As an issue filer, you get to be your own source of truth! Own it! Own the possibility being wrong on the internet sometimes! (It happens to all of us, and the effort involved in saying "whoops" and closing a bug is pretty minimal.)

You can actually choose tags by using the issue templates. If you think it's helpful to have a set template for fuzzing issues (which it probably would be?) you can make a PR to create what you need. The existing templates are in this directory: https://github.com/intel/cve-bin-tool/tree/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE . For now, you can actually use the docstrings issue template, erase everything in it, and you'll still get the "good first issue" tag.

Thank you for sharing this knowledge with me.
I learnt something new today.
I'm not really afraid of being wrong in that sense, but I'll keep this in mind moving forward!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants