-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 239
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
[RRFC] npm audit fix
should remove optional deps if necessary
#672
Comments
I don't think that's a safe option to take - vulns are quite often false positives, and while we can assume that the thing for which it's optional can work without it, we can't assume that the behavior of the application will remain unbroken if the optional dep isn't present. |
If the application is depending on the optional dep, they should install it as a dependency, I'd think? But yes, it would be a semver major change to npm for sure. |
What i mean is, a package could have it as an optional dep, and removing that optional dep is a breaking change for the package, because it might break consumers of the package. |
I am for this feature as well and would like to provide another use case. A package made a minor upgrade, and introduced a security issue. Yu fill in a new issue on the package (or you send an email to keep it private), and still want your CI to pass, and you could ask |
Motivation ("The Why")
Sometimes an optional transitive dependency may have a security advisory against it, and there may be no way to fix it.
For example:
Example
How
Current Behaviour
Desired Behavior
References
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: