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

Update vitest to 1.6.1 to address security vulnerability CVE-2025-24964 #1656

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

guntherjh
Copy link
Contributor

@guntherjh guntherjh commented Feb 14, 2025

Hopefully this one is fairly straight forward. Our security team got alerted on a vulnerability in the version of vitest used. More information here. This PR bumps the version of vitest to 1.6.1.

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Feb 14, 2025

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 5f235d2

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

@@ -46,16 +46,16 @@
"compare-versions": "^4.1.3",
"eslint": "^8.15.0",
"puppeteer": "^9.1.1",
"typescript": "^5.4.5",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sorting things is admirable, but has the downside that it generates conflicts in other PRs, e.g. another PR I'm cherry-picking this on has removed the puppeteer dependency from here

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh whoops. This wasn't done manually/intentionally. I think it may just be yarn appending the new version when the package was updated 🤔

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it be possible to simplify? I think we'd need some process that automatically does this as part of existing processes e.g. prettier (yarn:format)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah that's probably a good idea as a matter of standardization. I'm happy to look in to this, but will probably submit a separate PR for this work just to keep the concerns separated.

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.

2 participants