ruff: bandit

[Borda]

use the Ruff's integration of bandit instead of dead test

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (12e857a) 97.85% compared to head (9379c5f) 97.85%.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #176 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 97.85% 97.85% ======================================= Files 6 6 Lines 513 513 Branches 96 96 ======================================= Hits 502 502 Misses 10 10 Partials 1 1 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [cachier/cores/mongo.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier#diff-Y2FjaGllci9jb3Jlcy9tb25nby5weQ==) | `94.91% <ø> (ø)` | | | [cachier/cores/pickle.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier#diff-Y2FjaGllci9jb3Jlcy9waWNrbGUucHk=) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | ------ [Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=continue&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier). > **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier) > `Δ = absolute (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data` > Powered by [Codecov](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=footer&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier). Last update [12e857a...9379c5f](https://app.codecov.io/gh/python-cachier/cachier/pull/176?src=pr&el=lastupdated&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=python-cachier).

[Borda]

there is still one more flag, but just looking at the codebase, and not sure if all the versioneer is really needed. I feel it is too heavy for this tiny project and the only thing it does is giving/generating a package version...

cc: @shaypal5

[shaypal5]

So do we want to drop versioneer first, then rebase this branch over master to get all checks to pass here? @Borda

[Borda]

So do we want to drop versioneer first, then rebase this branch over master to get all checks to pass here?

right, as versions refactor landed, I ll just resolve conflicts :)