Safety 2 use without a subprocess

[yeisonvargasf]

The issue

• The pipenv new Safety implementation is using a subprocess.

• There isn't a non-verbose output.

This pull request is related to #5218

The fix

• pipenv check uses Safety directly, replacing the Safety implementation with a subprocess.

• Added a new minimal output, a non-verbose output.

[oz123]

@yeisonvargasf your vendoring stage is failing because you started off with an outdated branch.

Please cherry-pick this commit onto your branch;

6f88313

[oz123]

@yeisonvargasf can you please rebase your changes on top of the current main branch?

[yeisonvargasf]

Thanks, @oz123! I rebased my changes on top of the current main branch.

The PR base branch is the @matteius branch; do we need to change the base branch to main?

On the other hand, running the tests in my local environment fails because Safety detects a vulnerability in the tested environment. Could you help to review that?

After the test issue is solved, we'll need vendoring the latest Safety version that PyUp will release next week; it fixes an issue related to ruamel and its use in pipenv check.

[oz123]

@yeisonvargasf we don't have base branch, it's just main. Currently, your PR isn't mergeable. Please rebase again.

[matteius]

@yeisonvargasf I don't know if you could go back to the way this branch was before the attempted rebase? It probably would have worked smoother to have merged main branch changes into this fork/branch instead of how this rebase was done.

[matteius]

I can update my branch with the latest main changes now if that helps, you can continue to target that branch, but right now the commit history here seems corrupted from the rebasing, perhaps you can cherry-pick your original commits to a new branch off my updated branch?

[matteius]

I have pushed the updated changes from main to my branch vendor-latest-safety2

[yeisonvargasf]

I think the same, so sure, @matteius; I'll create a new branch and make a new PR with the vendor-latest-safety2 as a target.