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

fix scope issues identified by new lint pass #986

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 29, 2025
Merged

Conversation

williballenthin
Copy link
Collaborator

@williballenthin williballenthin commented Jan 29, 2025

ref mandiant/capa#2579

Most of these are obvious. But I did make one set of debatable changes: when a rule can have a really small scope, but we had an optional block to provide more context and therefore has a loose scope, i tightened the scope and removed the optional block. for example:

image

Otherwise, it gets kinda weird when a rule really just describes a single API call but has to have span scope, which then requires the rules that reference it to also have that looser scope.

Copy link
Collaborator

@mike-hunhoff mike-hunhoff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks great, thank you! I think removing the optional statements is worth the trade offs. LGTM 🚀

@williballenthin williballenthin merged commit 0ea3394 into master Jan 29, 2025
5 checks passed
@williballenthin williballenthin deleted the fix-scopes branch January 29, 2025 17:54
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 this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants