Skip to content
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

⬆️ [#93] Upgrade django to 4.2.17 #94

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 2, 2025
Merged

Conversation

stevenbal
Copy link
Contributor

@stevenbal stevenbal commented Dec 24, 2024

Fixes #93 partially

TODO:

  • pin tornado==6.4.2 jinja2==3.1.5 waitress==3.0.1

Changes

  • Upgrade django to 4.2.17

@stevenbal stevenbal marked this pull request as draft December 24, 2024 14:54
@stevenbal stevenbal force-pushed the issue/93-security-patches branch from 0365e6a to fcffb5d Compare December 24, 2024 15:13
@stevenbal stevenbal changed the title ⬆️ [#93] Several security updates for dependencies ⬆️ [#93] Upgrade django to 4.2.17 Dec 24, 2024
@stevenbal stevenbal marked this pull request as ready for review December 24, 2024 15:14
@stevenbal
Copy link
Contributor Author

stevenbal commented Dec 24, 2024

There are several dependencies of dependencies that have vulnerabilities (e.g. flower->tornado, django->jinja2), but since we don't explicitly pin them here, I guess will upgrade them in each project with bin/compile-dependencies.sh -P ...

@stevenbal
Copy link
Contributor Author

Now that I'm thinking about it, this does make this package feel kind of pointless, should I maybe pin these dependencies to the latest security release in open-api-framework as well? I could put them under a separate section to indicate that they are dependencies of dependencies? What do you think @annashamray?

@annashamray
Copy link
Contributor

Do you want to put them into optional dependencies?

@stevenbal
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't know if adding them to optional would be too useful right now, since they are already included implicitly (because we pin the dependency that installs it).

Once we fix #67 they should be moved to the dependency group that installs that dependency though

@annashamray
Copy link
Contributor

@stevenbal I agree and it feels like we would manage dependencies for external libraries

I'll approve this PR but not sure if we can effectively do something to django deps in OAF

@stevenbal stevenbal marked this pull request as draft January 2, 2025 09:24
@stevenbal
Copy link
Contributor Author

it feels like we would manage dependencies for external libraries

that's indeed why I'm hesitant to do it this way. I'll check the libraries that have affected dependencies can be upgraded to silence these issues, if not I'll just upgrade them in the projects themselves

@stevenbal stevenbal marked this pull request as ready for review January 2, 2025 14:38
@stevenbal stevenbal merged commit 8b6e918 into main Jan 2, 2025
5 checks passed
@stevenbal stevenbal deleted the issue/93-security-patches branch January 2, 2025 14:38
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.

Bump third party library versions to fix security issues
2 participants