Skip to content

Conversation

@Seldaek
Copy link
Member

@Seldaek Seldaek commented Nov 14, 2025

Fixes #12612

Also @naderman please review docs carefully (just a reminder:)

@Seldaek Seldaek added this to the 2.9 milestone Nov 14, 2025
@Seldaek Seldaek requested a review from naderman November 14, 2025 17:07
"description": "Explanation for ignoring this advisory (applies to both audit and blocking)"
},
{
"type": "object",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

shouldn't this object define some properties as required ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think neither of the two properties is required. You can use the object purely to define a reason, if you want to use the default value for application, or to define the application mode and skip the reason. In the end there's no harm in leaving it empty either. Just means default application, empty reason?

@Seldaek Seldaek merged commit bfc0e31 into composer:main Nov 19, 2025
21 checks passed
@Seldaek Seldaek deleted the block_edits branch November 19, 2025 16:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Security config and option cleanup for audit&blocking

3 participants