-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 449
feat: Introduce capabilities package #1256
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
I think we both opened a PR on the same feature :) #1253 |
I'm fine keeping either one as long as we can reconcile our work together. If you would like to merge yours, please add the tests I've tried to add here. |
Since you already added tests, I'm more than ok to go with yours :) |
Have you guys seen #1202? |
Thank you for the heads up @yanivagman. I wasn't aware of the other patch. That's one of the reasons why I'm more and more inclined to Opportunistic Refactoring, aka boy-scout rule, rather than refactoring for refactoring kind of task. |
Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
refer: aquasecurity#1256 (comment) Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Simar <simar@linux.com>
@AlonZivony I think this overlaps to what I suggested to you in your PR #1202 (on selfCapabilities functions). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
This PR addresses the need for capabilities to be in its own testable package space.
Close #1254