fix scope issues identified by new lint pass#986
Merged
williballenthin merged 2 commits intomasterfrom Jan 29, 2025
Merged
Conversation
3 tasks
mike-hunhoff
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2025
Collaborator
mike-hunhoff
left a comment
mike-hunhoff
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great, thank you! I think removing the optional statements is worth the trade offs. LGTM 🚀
mr-tz
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
ref mandiant/capa#2579
Most of these are obvious. But I did make one set of debatable changes: when a rule can have a really small scope, but we had an optional block to provide more context and therefore has a loose scope, i tightened the scope and removed the optional block. for example:
Otherwise, it gets kinda weird when a rule really just describes a single API call but has to have span scope, which then requires the rules that reference it to also have that looser scope.