Document --quick option in README

[mlevesquedion]

Description

This change adds a bit of documentation concerning the --quick option. I did not create an issue beforehand as I believe that this is a "trivial documentation" change (as described in CONTRIBUTING.md). This change was inspired by discussion on https://github.com/aquasecurity/starboard/issues/165.

Contribution Guidelines

Please Read through the Contribution Guidelines.

Fixed Issues

N/A

"BEFORE" and "AFTER" output

N/A

Contribution checklist

• [x] I have read the Contributing Guidelines.
• [x] The commits refer to an active issue in the repository. (N/A)
• [x] I have added automated testing to cover this case. (N/A)

Notes

N/A

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #436 (e508d2f) into main (99678f3) will increase coverage by 0.21%. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #436      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   63.41%   63.63%   +0.21%     
==========================================
  Files          42       42              
  Lines        2296     2296              
==========================================
+ Hits         1456     1461       +5     
+ Misses        840      835       -5     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
kube_hunter/core/events/handler.py	90.09% <0.00%> (-1.00%)	:arrow_down:
kube_hunter/modules/hunting/apiserver.py	72.34% <0.00%> (+1.92%)	:arrow_up:

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 99678f3...e508d2f. Read the comment docs.

[danielsagi]

Hi @mlevesquedion That's a really good idea! quick scanning is a feature that solves a problem in azure scanning. I agree that this should be documented. But I believe we should create something like a Q&A.md or ADVANCEDUSAGE.md and in there, start adding knowledge like that. Because it is not falling under a scanning method, but rather falls under general knowledge. Wdyt?

[mlevesquedion]

Hi @danielsagi

Thanks for taking a look at my PR! I agree that this might not belong in the README. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's worth creating an extra file just for this piece of documentation. Are there other things which currently aren't documented, but that we could put into a Q&A or ADVANCEDUSAGE file?

[danielsagi]

Hi @mlevesquedion Sorry for the late reply, I agree. Maybe add an Advance Usage section in the original Readme file. In my opinion, at the bottom

[danielsagi]

closing, due to inactivity... I created a new PR for this #441