I'm not sure if there is always a patch to the corresponding CVE ?
And what if patch_a doesn't fix the CVE properly and then here comes patch_b, so there are two patches to fix one certain CVE. In this case will the CVE reference updated?
To give a correct answer we have to check the CVE publication processes,
To begin, the person who find a vulnerability have to tell it to the editor of the impacted product.
After that, the editor have a period to provide a patch.
After this period the vulnerability is published.
Usually the editor have already create a patch and the website who publish the CVE give a link to the patch.
But sometime, after the period there's no patch. Sometime the editor made the decision not to provide a patch. many reason for that :
The impacted product are not supported ;
The editor did not have enough time to provide a patch.
So it is therefore possible not to find a patch for a CVE.
For the second question,
usually, when a patch does not fix properly a vulnerability a second CVE ID are created with a new patch.
Related
buildNewStructure(){
removeAll(children.query());
sprite = Sprite(Flame.images.fromCache('new_structure.png'));
add(ListButton0(g,structure!));
add(ListButton1(g,structure!));
add(ListButton2(g,structure!));
add(ListButton3(g,structure!));
add(LeftButton(g,structure!));
add(RightButton(g,structure!));}
With this design, old components are not deleted when called frequently. What is the reason for this behavior? How to properly remove old components so that they are definitely removed?
They are deleted, but everything is processed before the next tick, not in the same tick. Just like you say you'll notice a performance degradation if you call lifecycle.processQueues manually since it will then be done two times per tick.
Preferably you shouldn't build logic that depends on checking whether components are in the component tree in the same tick. You can check component.isRemoving if you want to see whether the component is going to be removed before the next tick.
lifecycle.processQueues();
This helped solve the problem, but I'm not sure that this is the right solution, I notice a drop in performance.
I am discovering the Azure Delivery Plan but I don't understand why I don't see all my Features in there.
This is what I am talking about:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/boards/plans/review-team-plans?view=azure-devops&tabs=plans-preview
I have looked at the Tags, owners, start/end dates, and so on but can not find any criteria which indicate why I see certain Features and not others.
I am also a member of the projects that I do not see.
Can anyone shed some light for me on this one?
In my test, if the dates of two iterations overlap, the features under the iteration will not be displayed.
For example:
If the date does not overlap, the features under the iteration will be displayed normally.
You can check if this is your case.
This one is actually on me and was kind of logical.
The features were on the backlog and didn't have any iteration assigned, hence, there were not showing below any iteration.
Thank you for the suggestions and feedback! Case closed!
My organization is trying to find an out of the box way with Azure DevOps to see which features were 'committed to' at the start of the release, and which are delivered. The Velocity report would be perfect, except Features are assigned to areas that are configured to run off of sprints that are child-iterations of larger release-iterations, and we want the data at the release-iteration level.
We're able to build queries that can mostly deliver this, but that method doesn't track changes, just shows you a current point in time view of how things are.
The goal is to have data we can use to evaluate if we're making commitments we can keep.
How have other organizations tackled this sort of problem? How do you tie committed vs. actuals at the Feature level?
I could understand your requirements. But based on my test, Velocity Report has some limitations:
For example:
If the Iteration Path has Child Iteration, it will show the child Iteration on Velocity Report. As you said , release-iteration will not show in the Report.
So it cannot meet all your needs.
I tested some related extensions and existing charts, and it seems that there is no tool that can improve or replace the Velocity Report .
For a workaround:
For Child Iteration, you still could use the Velocity Report to record the process.
For the Parent Iteration, you could create different queries to show the process(Planned
, Completed,Completed Late and so on). You can use query to get the work item list of the corresponding state.
Here are examples:
Planned :
Completed:
...
Then you could add them to the Dashboards(Query Title Widget):
On the other hand, this requirement is valuable.
You could add your request for this feature on our UserVoice site, which is our main forum for product suggestions.
This is a programming language and version control system agnostic question.
There is a source code tree and two patches X and Y. Each of them apply cleanly to the source code tree. But applying one of them (either X or Y first), then another one, results in second patch failing to apply (patches conflict).
Is my only option applying one of them (probably the biggest one, so most of work gets done automatically), then merging the other one by hand and resolving conflicts, or there are better tools/practices to handle this scenario?
The goal is to avoid this situation from happening as there's no easy solution to merge.
In order to avoid, make small commits with their tests and push them to the source repository. Other guys in the team will be forced to pull the latest changes in order to commit their code, and this will ensure that nothing gets broken.
I encourage you to avoid having multiple teams manipulating the same part of the source code. Create a good structure and if possible break down the project into smaller projects.
I'm having some issues with the installation of Rational Team Concert on my server.
The thing is that when I upload some changes to the server (any kind), it changes the last modified attribute of the file, but it shouldn't do it.
Is there a way to avoid this behavior?
Thank you in advance!
This is something that we have tried to add to RTC SCM (and we still plan to). However, we found that it needs to be an option on load/update.
There are numerous details and discussions available # this work item on jazz.net
Regarding timestamp, getting over the fact that relying on it in a version control tool isn't always considered a best-practice (see "What's the equivalent of use-commit-times for git?"), it is actually a complex issue:
an SCM loader wouldn't use just timestamp to determined what file has changed (Task 179263)
you can have various requirements for that timestamp (like in Defect 159043, where the file timestamp of the modified file on disk that of when it was delivered, not when I accepted.). The variable JAZZ_CCM_SKIP_MOD_TIME=true is mentioned so check if that could improve your specific case.
it is all based on the assumption the timestamp is correctly set by the local workstation, which isn't always true, as illustrated in Task 77201