Open adamdmharvey opened 1 year ago
Thank you @adamdmharvey for creating this issue. If this is in regards to a defect, product question or feature request: you should use our support portal at https://support.fossa.com to file a request, as you would receive more immediate support.
(As per issue template, I also e-mailed support w/ reference to this GH issue.)
Cross ref: https://support.fossa.com/hc/en-us/requests/6722
Note using the FOSSA UI, and importing my personal fork of the Backstage project, the full analysis (minus my exclusions) seemed to all validate successfully. So it's almost like the CLI is acting differently from the built-system through the site?
e.g., for FOSSA folks who may have access: https://app.fossa.com/projects/git%2Bgithub.com%2Fadamdmharvey%2Fbackstage/refs/branch/master/5623a818b957b0ef3d44434cd4b8afbf9ae43f7d
Important: Bug reports should be directed to
support@fossa.com
for faster response and prioritization. Bug reports may still be created here but they may not get immediate attention and may be closed in favor of internally tracked tickets.Describe the bug The Backstage CNCF project uses Node.js and Yarn for dependency management. It is a monorepo, and contains two local packages which are not published and are referenced locally by the project using the
yarn link
feature.These two packages keep failing a Lockfile validation during a
fossa analyze
.It's specifically this
package.json
dependency reference:https://github.com/backstage/backstage/blob/5623a818b957b0ef3d44434cd4b8afbf9ae43f7d/packages/techdocs-cli/package.json#L50
Which then scans against these values in the
yarn.lock:
The resulting summary output is:
To Reproduce Steps to reproduce the behavior:
fossa analyze --debug
against the repoExpected behavior Lockfile validation should succeed.
Debug bundle fossa.debug.json.gz
Additional context This was potentially previously reported here in Nov 2022 but the issue was closed: https://github.com/fossas/fossa-cli/issues/1111
The Backstage project is working to enable FOSSA scanning to support it's CNCF CLO Compliance via https://github.com/backstage/backstage/issues/18821.
I wasn't sure if there's some sort of exlusion we could add, but it seems it's just the core validation of the lockfile itself which fails regardless if we exclude the relevant packages in the target or via paths.