Track rubygems projects' targetFilerelativePath #975
Conversation
ghost
requested review from
aviadhahami
force-pushed
the
logging/track-ruby-project-relative-paths
branch
from
09e881a to
bfcf617
Compare
| for (let i = 0; i < resArray.length; i++) { | ||
| results.push(_.assign(resArray[i], { path })); | ||
|
|
||
| if (options.file && resArray[i].packageManager === 'rubygems') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be better done
after https://github.com/snyk/snyk/blob/a724b210cd2ad38d7124ff6257ed571ee34d973a/src/lib/snyk-test/run-test.ts#L353 as there might be multiple files that are tested (--all-projects).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure I understand what you mean
| @@ -155,6 +155,12 @@ async function monitor(...args0: MethodArgs): Promise<any> { | |||
| const targetFileRelativePath = tFile | |||
| ? pathUtil.join(pathUtil.resolve(path), tFile) | |||
| : ''; | |||
|
|
|||
| // target file logging as a port of [Jira: BST-1124] | |||
| if (packageManager === 'rubygems' && options.file) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should log this even if the options.file option was not set
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so we definitely don't already track this in existing analytics?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what about older CLIs? Have you considered doing this in the main app instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lili2311 you are right, on it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lili2311 in registry I can only get the file (flag usage and file itself), but not targetFileRelativeFile, do we still want to proceed w/ registry?
|
ok, IMO this can be dropped in favor of https://github.com/snyk/registry/pull/11380 @lili2311 wdyt? |
|
@aviadatsnyk yep agreed it would be better there |
|
@aviadhahami ^^ |
What does this PR do?
Added
analyticslogging for rubygems projects using--fileflag;