feat: Github Actions + Yarn update #235
Conversation
|
🚨 Potential security issues detected. Learn more about Socket for GitHub ↗︎ To accept the risk, merge this PR and you will not be notified again.
Next stepsWhat is shell access?This module accesses the system shell. Accessing the system shell increases the risk of executing arbitrary code. Packages should avoid accessing the shell which can reduce portability, and make it easier for malicious shell access to be introduced. What is new author?A new npm collaborator published a version of the package for the first time. New collaborators are usually benign additions to a project, but do indicate a change to the security surface area of a package. Scrutinize new collaborator additions to packages because they now have the ability to publish code into your dependency tree. Packages should avoid frequent or unnecessary additions or changes to publishing rights. What is network access?This module accesses the network. Packages should remove all network access that is functionally unnecessary. Consumers should audit network access to ensure legitimate use. What is an install script?Install scripts are run when the package is installed. The majority of malware in npm is hidden in install scripts. Packages should not be running non-essential scripts during install and there are often solutions to problems people solve with install scripts that can be run at publish time instead. What is a deprecated package?The maintainer of the package marked it as deprecated. This could indicate that a single version should not be used, or that the package is no longer maintained and any new vulnerabilities will not be fixed. Research the state of the package and determine if there are non-deprecated versions that can be used, or if it should be replaced with a new, supported solution. What is unstable ownership?A new collaborator has begun publishing package versions. Package stability and security risk may be elevated. Try to reduce the amount of authors you depend on to reduce the risk to malicious actors gaining access to your supply chain. Packages should remove inactive collaborators with publishing rights from packages on npm. Take a deeper look at the dependencyTake a moment to review the security alert above. Review the linked package source code to understand the potential risk. Ensure the package is not malicious before proceeding. If you're unsure how to proceed, reach out to your security team or ask the Socket team for help at support [AT] socket [DOT] dev. Remove the packageIf you happen to install a dependency that Socket reports as Known Malware you should immediately remove it and select a different dependency. For other alert types, you may may wish to investigate alternative packages or consider if there are other ways to mitigate the specific risk posed by the dependency. Mark a package as acceptable riskTo ignore an alert, reply with a comment starting with
|
|
It would be great if the yarn v4 upgrade could be separated into a individual PR separate from the rest of the changes in this PR that aren't required for that. It would certainly help reviewing dependency changes incurred by the I also see linting changes here. If linting is required as a consequence of upgrading a package (like eslint config), that would also be good to have broken out as independent change. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checking in the yarn binary is not recommended anymore and I think there is no need introducing it. See:
| "@types/jest": "^28.1.6", | ||
| "@types/node": "^16", | ||
| "@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin": "^5.43.0", | ||
| "@typescript-eslint/parser": "^5.43.0", | ||
| "@yarnpkg/types": "^4.0.0-rc.52", | ||
| "depcheck": "^1.4.3", | ||
| "eslint": "^8.44.0", | ||
| "eslint-config-prettier": "^8.8.0", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-import": "~2.26.0", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-jest": "^27.6.0", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-jsdoc": "^43.0.7", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-jest": "^27.2.2", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-jsdoc": "^39.9.1", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-n": "^15.7.0", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-node": "^11.1.0", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-prettier": "^4.2.1", | ||
| "eslint-plugin-promise": "^6.1.1", | ||
| "jest": "^29.7.0", | ||
| "jest-environment-jsdom": "^29.7.0", | ||
| "prettier": "^2.2.1", | ||
| "rimraf": "^3.0.2", | ||
| "ts-jest": "^29.1.1", | ||
| "ts-node": "^10.9.1", | ||
| "typescript": "^5.1.0" | ||
| "jest": "^28.1.3", | ||
| "jest-it-up": "^2.0.2", | ||
| "prettier": "^2.7.1", | ||
| "prettier-plugin-packagejson": "^2.3.0", | ||
| "ts-jest": "^28.0.7", | ||
| "ts-node": "^10.7.0", | ||
| "tsup": "^7.2.0", | ||
| "typedoc": "^0.23.15", | ||
| "typescript": "~4.8.4" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are all of the downgrades happening here intentional?
This PR attempts to bring as close as possible, this controller module to the module-template configuration
Aside from the usual code review, we need:
This PR should also fix:
#224
#198
#197
#196