Skip to content

fix: treat 1.0 and 1 as the same for excel users #4543

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Dec 18, 2024
Merged

Conversation

terriko
Copy link
Contributor

@terriko terriko commented Oct 30, 2024

If you edit a csv/spreadsheet in excel, it will modify values that "look like" integers to it, so the version 1.0 becomes 1, truncating the final ".0" from the version string. This adds an edge case in to the version compare function so it treats these truncated versions as the same (which was the behaviour in previous versions of cve-bin-tool).

* fixes intel#4467

If you edit a csv/spreadsheet in excel, it will modify values that "look
like" integers to it, so the version 1.0 becomes 1, truncating the final
".0" from the version string.    This adds an edge case in to the
version compare function so it treats these truncated versions as the
same (which was the behaviour in previous versions of cve-bin-tool).

Signed-off-by: Terri Oda <[email protected]>
@tzirn
Copy link

tzirn commented Nov 6, 2024

@terriko is this where I'm supposed to get the new version of cve-bin-tool to test?

@tzirn
Copy link

tzirn commented Dec 4, 2024

@terriko is this where I'm supposed to get the new version of cve-bin-tool to test?

Hi @terriko could you provide a download link as you've done before?

@terriko
Copy link
Contributor Author

terriko commented Dec 9, 2024

@ tzirn Sorry, I didn't realize you'd have no idea how to test a branch! There's instructions if you search, but basically you clone my copy with the changes, then you'd run cve-bin-tool from that copy similar to how you'd do it from the main branch as we describe in the dev docs: https://github.com/intel/cve-bin-tool/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#getting-and-maintaining-a-local-copy-of-the-source-code (Or build your own package following the tutorial at https://packaging.python.org/)

But I"m guessing if that's not a thing you already knew, then it might be a bit much to sort out just to test a fix. Let me see if I can get this merged (we're having some CI issues at the moment) and I'll see about building a package.

@terriko terriko added the awaiting maintainer Need a maintainer to respond / help out label Dec 9, 2024
@terriko
Copy link
Contributor Author

terriko commented Dec 18, 2024

Okay, finally resolved the longtest issue and this is clearly passing. @anthonyharrison do you have time to do a code review?

@terriko terriko merged commit fc85cc8 into intel:main Dec 18, 2024
24 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting CI awaiting maintainer Need a maintainer to respond / help out
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

v3.4 excludes micro-ecc when version is "1" instead of "1.0" which worked in 3.3
3 participants