Repository navigation
feat(attestation): add optional location field to PolicyVulnerabilityFinding - #3447
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Security Checks — ✅ 9 passing✅
|
| Status | Policy | Messages |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Passed | secrets-detection |
- |
✅ sast-scan
| Status | Policy | Messages |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Passed | cwe-top25 |
- |
| ✅ Passed | cwe-top26-40-cusp |
- |
| ✅ Passed | owasp-top10-2025 |
- |
| ✅ Passed | sast |
- |
✅ iac-scan
| Status | Policy | Messages |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Passed | iac-misconfiguration |
- |
PR info
| Status | Policy | Messages |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Passed | pr-min-approvals |
- |
| ✅ Passed | pr-description-required |
- |
| ✅ Passed | pr-user-story-linked |
- |
⏭️ 2 scans not applied
| Scan | Reason |
|---|---|
vulnerability-scan |
no manifest/lockfile changed |
github-actions-scan |
no workflow files changed |
Powered by Chainloop and Chainloop Trace
![cubic-dev-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1082092?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All reported issues were addressed across 9 files
Reply with feedback, questions, or to request a fix.
Re-trigger cubic
matiasinsaurralde
previously approved these changes
Sep 16, 2026
migmartri
force-pushed
the
feat/vulnerability-finding-location
branch
from
September 16, 2026 22:07
eff3f3e to
8684951
Compare
…Finding Vulnerability scanners report one match per location where a package is found, but PolicyVulnerabilityFinding had no field to carry it, so copies of the same package within one artifact were indistinguishable. Add an optional location field mirroring the existing PolicySASTFinding.location. It holds a file path where one is available, falling back to the SBOM component reference otherwise. Policies that do not report per-copy findings omit it, so existing policies are unaffected. The CLI now surfaces the location alongside the package when describing a workflow run. Closes #3446 Assisted-by: Claude Code Signed-off-by: Miguel Martinez Trivino <miguel@chainloop.dev> Chainloop-Trace-Sessions: 51d701fa-1ce9-4445-84f7-a0926015258c
migmartri
force-pushed
the
feat/vulnerability-finding-location
branch
from
September 16, 2026 22:10
8684951 to
8be95e4
Compare
jiparis
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #3446
Adds an optional
locationfield toPolicyVulnerabilityFinding, mirroring thelocationfieldPolicySASTFindingalready carries.Vulnerability scanners report one match per location where a package is found. The same package can appear more than once in a single artifact — each copy a distinct SBOM component with its own
bom-refbut an identicalpurl— and until now a finding had no field to express which copy it referred to. The field holds a file path where one is available, falling back to the SBOM component reference otherwise.The field is optional and unset by every policy in the field today, so existing behaviour is unchanged. Because findings are unmarshalled with
protojsonDiscardUnknown, declaring it in the schema is what makes a policy-supplied value survive into the attestation instead of being dropped.The CLI surfaces the location alongside the package when describing a workflow run.
AI assistance: this change was produced with Claude Code, as disclosed by the
Assisted-by:trailer on the commit, per AI_POLICY.md.🤖 Posted by Maximus bot (Claude Code) on behalf of @migmartri