Skip to content

[Snyk] Security upgrade karma from 1.3.0 to 2.0.0 #1

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

snyk-bot
Copy link

Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `npm` dependencies of this project.

merge advice

Changes included in this PR

  • Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
    • openam-ui/openam-ui-ria/package.json

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:
Severity Priority Score (*) Issue Breaking Change Exploit Maturity
high severity 761/1000
Why? Mature exploit, Has a fix available, CVSS 7.5
Denial of Service (DoS)
npm:ws:20171108
Yes Mature

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Commit messages
Package name: karma The new version differs by 192 commits.
  • db41e8e chore: release v2.0.0
  • 0a1a8ef chore: update contributors
  • 1afcb09 chore: add yarn.lock
  • f64e1e0 Merge pull request #2899 from outsideris/fix-bad-url-in-stacktrace
  • 78ad12f refactor(server): move compile step to first run
  • 34dc7d3 fix(reporter): show file path correctly when urlRoot specified
  • b53929a Merge pull request #2712 from macjohnny/patch-1
  • c9e1ca9 feat: better string representation of errors
  • 10fac07 Merge pull request #2885 from karma-runner/prep-2
  • 00e3f88 chore: remove yarn.lock for now
  • 60dfc5c feat: drop core-js and babel where possible
  • 0e1907d test: improve linting and fix test on node 4
  • af0efda test(e2e): update cucumber step definitions
  • c3ccc5d chore(ci): focus on even node versions
  • bf25094 chore(deps): update to latest
  • d93cc5f docs(config): Document port collision scenario.
  • 871d46f feat(launcher): trim whitespace in browser name
  • 99fd3f0 fix(config): Call debug log methods after setting the loglevel based upon config/cli-options.
  • 7bd54ed Merge pull request #2890 from reda-alaoui/patch-1
  • 91e916a docs(config): Document port collision scenario.
  • 334f9fb feat(launcher): trim whitespace in browser name
  • e23c0d4 Merge pull request #2837 from JakeChampion/logs
  • a340dae fix(config): Call debug log methods after setting the loglevel based upon config/cli-options.
  • 6d353dc docs: improve comments in config.tpl.*

See the full diff

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.


Note: You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized Snyk to open fix PRs.

For more information:
🧐 View latest project report

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 2 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +1 -1
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +1 -1

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant