fix: use bool type for DD_DUPLICATE_CLUSTER_CASCADE_DELETE env var#14565
Open
valentijnscholten wants to merge 1 commit intoDefectDojo:bugfixfrom
Open
fix: use bool type for DD_DUPLICATE_CLUSTER_CASCADE_DELETE env var#14565valentijnscholten wants to merge 1 commit intoDefectDojo:bugfixfrom
valentijnscholten wants to merge 1 commit intoDefectDojo:bugfixfrom
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
settings_changes
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The
DD_DUPLICATE_CLUSTER_CASCADE_DELETEenv var was declared asstrinstead ofboolinsettings.dist.py, meaning it was never properly parsed as a boolean.This means it was always parsed as True (ot at least Truthy) so the behaviour was always to delete the full duplicate cluster when an original finding was deleted. This is not only very slow as it triggers all signals, it might also not be what users expect.
This PR fixes the bug. But this also means the default behaviour changes because the flag is now correctly parsed as
False. This might surprise users. Since we have never had any complaints of bug reports, we may be better off changing the default toTrue? From a performance point of viewFalseis much better :-)Let me know your thoughts @Maffooch @mtesauro