Skip to content
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

Clarification of FORCE_EXIT option #85

Open
bjoernbusch opened this issue Oct 21, 2024 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #91
Open

Clarification of FORCE_EXIT option #85

bjoernbusch opened this issue Oct 21, 2024 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #91

Comments

@bjoernbusch
Copy link

In the documentation of the CLI, it looks like there is a generic FORCE_EXIT option, but when I use this in combination with bom map ... --forceexit 0 the call exits with 80 anyway. When looking at the code, it looks like this option is only considered in the context of a security vulnerability report.

Could this be planned as an enhancement to consider the FORCE_EXIT option for all calls? If not, could the documentation be updated? Or maybe I just don't understand the code :)

Thanks!

@tngraf tngraf linked a pull request Oct 22, 2024 that will close this issue
@gernot-h
Copy link
Collaborator

@bjoernbusch, I think applying the option to more/all subcommands might be a good idea. We're always open for PRs, perhaps start small with your actual use case, then we can think about extending it to more commands over time. :-)

@tngraf already started documenting the current restrictions which confirms your assumption, see #91.

@bjoernbusch
Copy link
Author

thanks for the clarification, I will try to dive into python and conjure up a PR :)

@gernot-h
Copy link
Collaborator

gernot-h commented Oct 24, 2024

thanks for the clarification, I will try to dive into python and conjure up a PR :)

Great, thanks, @bjoernbusch! Please don't wait until you have a final implementation, but let us know as soon as you have an idea how to implement it, either by describing your idea here or by providing an early draft PR! And don't hesitate to ask here or contact me directly if you have questions. ;)

This is just to avoid you put too much effort into an approach we probably need to adapt later, e.g. after clarifying the open points I mentioned in #91 (you're more than welcome to join our discussion there once you dived into the code ;) ). As Thomas is probably not available for clarifications in the next days, it might take some time until we have full clarity here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants