Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 14, 2021. It is now read-only.

Add failing test for invalid warning#4059

Closed
jbarreneche wants to merge 1 commit intorubygems:masterfrom
jbarreneche:bug/warn-on-second-install
Closed

Add failing test for invalid warning#4059
jbarreneche wants to merge 1 commit intorubygems:masterfrom
jbarreneche:bug/warn-on-second-install

Conversation

@jbarreneche
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Failing test case for issue #4058

@homu
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

homu commented Dec 16, 2015

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably e7cdd95) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@segiddins
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This will be fixed by #4714 in Bundler 2.0, thanks for the test @jbarreneche!

homu added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2016
[2.0] Remove RubyGems Aggregate & support transitive source pinning

Closes #3671.
Closes #3696.
Closes #4059.
@coilysiren
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closed via #4714

@coilysiren coilysiren closed this Oct 9, 2016
bundlerbot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2017
[2.0] Remove RubyGems Aggregate & support transitive source pinning

### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?

The problem was that the resolver could resolve specs from _any_ of the sources specified in the Gemfile, even if that source had nothing to do with the spec in question. This was such a large security vulnerability that, when discovered, it warranted a CVE and its own minor release of Bundler.

Closes #3671.
Closes #3696.
Closes #4059.

### Was was your diagnosis of the problem?

My diagnosis was that we needed to get rid of the notion of a `rubygems aggregate` and enforce that specs could only come either from the source they were declared to come from (the top-level source if declared at the top-level of the Gemfile, else a scoped source), or a source that it transitively "inherited" from the gems that required it.

### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?

My fix is to disable multiple top-level sources in the Gemfile, remove the RubyGems aggregate, and filter the sources gems could come from as described above.

### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?

I chose this fix because it allows doing the filtering in a reasonably performant manner, and refactors the way we handle sources to abstract some of the grossness in such a way that the machinations to make sure that all of the necessary gem info is downloaded is encapsulated into a single method, driven from the definition, rather than being specific to rubygems sources.

See #4714 and #4930 for the prior implementation.
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants