Replies: 2 comments 6 replies
-
They are not server API changes since a client uses protobuf and the same number. The field name doesn't matter for protobuf. Could you elaborate on how it was broken?
Also, is
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@knqyf263 I just tried to migrate to gRPC, but realized that Trivy only exposes a twirp-powered HTTP server, which doesn't accept native gRPC calls. Given your statement from earlier:
I'm wondering if you're planning to move off the HTTP-based Twirp server, towards a gRPC-native one. Or, alternatively, offer gRPC alongside Twirp? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Description
The Dependency-Track project recently received a community contribution to integrate with Trivy, via its server API.
The contribution was made when the latest Trivy release was 0.51.0.
Since then, there were a few breaking changes in Trivy's server API that caused the integration to no longer work:
libraries
field was renamed topackages
vuln_type
field was renamed topkg_types
In order to support Trivy version 0.51.0, 0.51.2, as well as 0.54.0 and newer, we now have to:
libraries
andpackages
with the same contentvuln_type
andpkg_types
with the same contentSince our users tend to leverage a central Trivy server that they already use for other purposes, only supporting the latest Trivy version would be a hard sell.
It would be preferable if we could either:
packages
for Trivy >=0.51.2), orAt the moment, Trivy will happily accept ill-formed requests, and simply not return any results. Which of course makes it impossible to determine if a project has no vulnerabilities, or simply couldn't be scanned at all. And there is currently no indicator as to what version the Trivy server is.
Would it be possible to enrich the Twirp server API with either a new version endpoint, or adding a version header to server responses?
Target
None
Scanner
None
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions