feat: add report summary table #8177
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -109,6 +109,11 @@ var ( | |||||
| ConfigName: "scan.show-suppressed", | ||||||
| Usage: "[EXPERIMENTAL] show suppressed vulnerabilities", | ||||||
| } | ||||||
| NoSummaryTableFlag = Flag[bool]{ | ||||||
| Name: "no-summary-table", | ||||||
| ConfigName: "no-summary-table", | ||||||
| Usage: "hide summary table", | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This is a major UI change, so there might be some backlash from the community. In that case, since switching from opt-out to opt-in is possible, it might be a good idea to mark it as experimental. Also, as @simar7 pointed out, boolean flags are not very flexible. Specifying it as something like There was a problem hiding this comment. hm... it make sense. I will update PR. There was a problem hiding this comment. There are several options:
Also,
There was a problem hiding this comment. I think this is a good idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment. My friend :) recommended When deciding on terminology to distinguish between a concise summary output and a more exhaustive one, many tools and UIs use the terms “Summary” and “Detailed.” While “Detail” or “Details” might seem similar at first glance, “detailed” is often chosen for the following reasons:
In short, “detailed” pairs nicely with “summary” and is more recognizable to users as the counterpart for a “deep-dive” option, while “detail” or “details” tend to read more like nouns referring to the actual data rather than the presentation style. There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment. In the interest of not committing bike shedding... I'll vote for There was a problem hiding this comment. Changed Perhaps you will have more ideas. |
||||||
| ) | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| // ReportFlagGroup composes common printer flag structs | ||||||
|
|
@@ -128,6 +133,7 @@ type ReportFlagGroup struct { | |||||
| Severity *Flag[[]string] | ||||||
| Compliance *Flag[string] | ||||||
| ShowSuppressed *Flag[bool] | ||||||
| NoSummaryTable *Flag[bool] | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| type ReportOptions struct { | ||||||
|
|
@@ -145,6 +151,7 @@ type ReportOptions struct { | |||||
| Severities []dbTypes.Severity | ||||||
| Compliance spec.ComplianceSpec | ||||||
| ShowSuppressed bool | ||||||
| NoSummaryTable bool | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| func NewReportFlagGroup() *ReportFlagGroup { | ||||||
|
|
@@ -163,6 +170,7 @@ func NewReportFlagGroup() *ReportFlagGroup { | |||||
| Severity: SeverityFlag.Clone(), | ||||||
| Compliance: ComplianceFlag.Clone(), | ||||||
| ShowSuppressed: ShowSuppressedFlag.Clone(), | ||||||
| NoSummaryTable: NoSummaryTableFlag.Clone(), | ||||||
| } | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@@ -186,6 +194,7 @@ func (f *ReportFlagGroup) Flags() []Flagger { | |||||
| f.Severity, | ||||||
| f.Compliance, | ||||||
| f.ShowSuppressed, | ||||||
| f.NoSummaryTable, | ||||||
| } | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
@@ -198,6 +207,7 @@ func (f *ReportFlagGroup) ToOptions() (ReportOptions, error) { | |||||
| template := f.Template.Value() | ||||||
| dependencyTree := f.DependencyTree.Value() | ||||||
| listAllPkgs := f.ListAllPkgs.Value() | ||||||
| noSummaryTable := f.NoSummaryTable.Value() | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| if template != "" { | ||||||
| if format == "" { | ||||||
|
|
@@ -227,6 +237,12 @@ func (f *ReportFlagGroup) ToOptions() (ReportOptions, error) { | |||||
| } | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| // "--so-summary" option is available only with "--format table". | ||||||
| if noSummaryTable && format != types.FormatTable { | ||||||
| noSummaryTable = false | ||||||
| log.Warn(`"--no-summary-table" can be used only with "--format table".`) | ||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. For example, suppose a flag has already been added for a long time, and we don't want to terminate a program for backward compatibility as it will change behavior. In that case, we have to make it a warning, but an error is basically better because the user may not see the warning message.
Suggested change
|
||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| cs, err := loadComplianceTypes(f.Compliance.Value()) | ||||||
| if err != nil { | ||||||
| return ReportOptions{}, xerrors.Errorf("unable to load compliance spec: %w", err) | ||||||
|
|
@@ -259,6 +275,7 @@ func (f *ReportFlagGroup) ToOptions() (ReportOptions, error) { | |||||
| Severities: toSeverity(f.Severity.Value()), | ||||||
| Compliance: cs, | ||||||
| ShowSuppressed: f.ShowSuppressed.Value(), | ||||||
| NoSummaryTable: noSummaryTable, | ||||||
| }, nil | ||||||
| } | ||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ | ||
| package table | ||
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| "github.com/aquasecurity/table" | ||
| "github.com/aquasecurity/trivy/pkg/types" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| type Scanner interface { | ||
| Header() string | ||
| Alignment() table.Alignment | ||
|
|
||
| // Count returns the number of findings, but -1 if the scanner is not applicable | ||
| Count(result types.Result) int | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func NewScanner(scanner types.Scanner) Scanner { | ||
| switch scanner { | ||
| case types.VulnerabilityScanner: | ||
| return VulnerabilityScanner{} | ||
| case types.MisconfigScanner: | ||
| return MisconfigScanner{} | ||
| case types.SecretScanner: | ||
| return SecretScanner{} | ||
| case types.LicenseScanner: | ||
| return LicenseScanner{} | ||
| } | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type scannerAlignment struct{} | ||
|
|
||
| func (s scannerAlignment) Alignment() table.Alignment { | ||
| return table.AlignCenter | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type VulnerabilityScanner struct{ scannerAlignment } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s VulnerabilityScanner) Header() string { | ||
| return "Vulnerabilities" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s VulnerabilityScanner) Count(result types.Result) int { | ||
| if result.Class == types.ClassOSPkg || result.Class == types.ClassLangPkg { | ||
| return len(result.Vulnerabilities) | ||
| } | ||
| return -1 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type MisconfigScanner struct{ scannerAlignment } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s MisconfigScanner) Header() string { | ||
| return "Misconfigurations" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s MisconfigScanner) Count(result types.Result) int { | ||
| if result.Class == types.ClassConfig { | ||
| return len(result.Misconfigurations) | ||
| } | ||
| return -1 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type SecretScanner struct{ scannerAlignment } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s SecretScanner) Header() string { | ||
| return "Secrets" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s SecretScanner) Count(result types.Result) int { | ||
| if result.Class == types.ClassSecret { | ||
| return len(result.Secrets) | ||
| } | ||
| return -1 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| type LicenseScanner struct{ scannerAlignment } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s LicenseScanner) Header() string { | ||
| return "Licenses" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (s LicenseScanner) Count(result types.Result) int { | ||
| if result.Class == types.ClassLicense { | ||
| return len(result.Licenses) | ||
| } | ||
| return -1 | ||
| } |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.