Human `scan --mode vendored --prune` silently skips the vendored GC when no remaining package has a patch, so an `npm uninstall`ed vendored entry is never reverted (exit 0), while `--json` reverts it and `vendor --check` keeps pointing at that same command
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
Ein zugehöriger Pull Request wurde bereits gemerged.
- #1338 von @mikolalysenko — gemerged
Bewertung
- Schwierigkeit
- 2/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- 1-3 Stunden
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 85/100
Rechercherichtung
Die Ursache liegt in crates/socket-patch-cli/src/commands/scan/mod.rs ungefähr bei den Zeilen 2673 und 2688, wo die vorzeitige Rückgabe bei leerem all_packages_with_patches die vendored GC überspringt. Ändere den Kontrollfluss so, dass in diesem Fall die vendored GC ausgeführt wird, entsprechend dem Verhalten des --json-Pfads. Führe die vorhandene Scan-Testsuite aus, um zu überprüfen, dass die Korrektur die Abweichung zwischen der menschenlesbaren und der JSON-Ausgabe behebt.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Beschreibung
[agent] Found by the scheduled npm bug-hunt routine (ledger #302).
Summary
You vendor a patched npm dependency, then remove it with npm uninstall. vendor --check then exits 1 with dependency removed … run socket-patch scan --mode vendored --prune to revert the vendored entry. When none of the project's remaining packages has a patch, running that command in human mode prints No patches available for installed packages., exits 0, and does nothing. The ledger entry and .socket/vendor/npm/<uuid>/ stay, and vendor --check still exits 1. The same command with --json does revert the entry (gc.revertedVendoredEntries: ["pkg:npm/[email protected]"]).
Impact
- The documented cleanup command doesn't work in the most common case: you removed your only patched dependency, or the only one left is unpatched.
vendor --checksends you to it, it exits 0, andvendor --checkstill fails. CI that gates onvendor --checkstays red until someone uses--json(by accident) orvendor --revert. - Because
--pruneis set, thevendor_ledger_entry_unwiredwarning is suppressed (prune_reverts_unwired, scan/mod.rs:1843). The human run gives no hint that anything was left behind. - Human and
--jsonoutput disagree about what the same command writes.
Repro (npm 10.9.4 / Node 22, also npm 12.2.0 / Node 24; local mock of the public patch proxy serving a free patch for [email protected])
mkdir p && cd p
echo '{"name":"p","version":"1.0.0","dependencies":{"left-pad":"1.3.0","ms":"2.1.3"}}' > package.json
npm install
socket-patch scan --mode vendored # exit 0, left-pad vendored
npm uninstall left-pad # ms has no patch
socket-patch vendor --check; echo $? # "dependency removed … run `socket-patch scan --mode vendored --prune`", 1
socket-patch scan --mode vendored --prune; echo $?
# Found 1 package (1 npm)
# No patches available for installed packages.
# 0
ls .socket/vendor/npm # 11111111-… still there; state.json still has left-pad
socket-patch vendor --check; echo $? # still 1
socket-patch scan --mode vendored --prune --json | jq .gc.revertedVendoredEntries
# ["pkg:npm/[email protected]"] ← JSON reverts it
Control: when a remaining package does have a patch (the mock also serves [email protected]), the human run prints GC: reverted 1 vendored entry and vendor --check goes green. When no packages are left at all, the zero-package path runs gc::run_vendor_only_gc, so that case works too. Only "packages found, none patched" is broken.
Expected vs actual
- Expected (CLI_CONTRACT.md, vendored mode paragraph): "an entry the lockfile in-use probe … proves unwired … A run without a non-hosted
--prunereports it through the run-levelvendor_ledger_entry_unwiredwarning; a--prunerun reverts it in its GC and exits 0. That GC runs even when the crawl found no packages". Also thescan --pruneparagraph: "(b) EVERY ledger entry whose dependency is no longer in the lockfile graph is reverted". - Actual: human mode, packages found but no patches: no GC, no warning, exit 0.
--json: GC runs and reverts the entry.
Matrix (Linux)
| npm | human --prune reverts |
--json --prune reverts |
runs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10.9.4 (Node 22.22) | no | yes | ×3 (incl. a workspace member npm uninstall -w a) |
| 12.2.0 (Node 24) | no | n/a (not re-run) | ×1 |
| 10.9.4, a patched package remains | yes | yes | ×1 (control) |
This is not OS-specific: it comes from scan control flow, not from the filesystem, so I didn't push a probe branch. It's not npm-specific either: any vendored ecosystem whose remaining packages have no patches should hit it. v4.0.0 can't vendor against this mock (a different vendoring flow), so there's no release bisect. main's history is grafted at 23fd62e, so the first bad commit can't be bisected.
Suspect code (main e2d9633)
crates/socket-patch-cli/src/commands/scan/mod.rs:2688:if all_packages_with_patches.is_empty() { … return finish_human(0).await; }crates/socket-patch-cli/src/commands/scan/mod.rs:2673:finish_humanruns the GC onlyif prune && !vendor && !hosted, because the vendored arm "runs its own". On this early return the vendored arm never runs, so nothing does.- The JSON path runs
gc_json(scan/mod.rs:2633) regardless, which is why--jsonworks. scan/mod.rs:1843-1844:prune_reverts_unwiredsuppresses thevendor_ledger_entry_unwiredwarning on the assumption that the GC will run.
Backlog review — 2026-10-08
Priority: P1 → P2. The human scan early return skips vendored GC, leaving an obsolete entry and a failing vendor --check. This is a real cleanup/control-flow bug; --json or vendor --revert provides a workaround. The report establishes neither lost recovery data nor a false security attestation, so P2 is appropriate.
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- Rust
- Sterne
- 8
- Forks
- 0
- Ø Merge
- 19 Std. 21 Min.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 421
Entwicklungsumgebung
- Kein Dockerfile und keine Docker-Compose-Datei
- Keine Pull-Request-Vorlage
- Beitragsleitfaden lesen
Erste Schritte
- Lesen Sie das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
- Schreiben Sie ins Issue, dass Sie es übernehmen — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
- Forken Sie das Repository und arbeiten Sie in einem Branch.
- Öffnen Sie einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.
Mehr aus SocketDev/socket-patch
-
agent:triaged bug bughunt pm:npm priority:p3
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 75/100
SocketDev/socket-patch#1072 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
Hosted gem `rollback` / `remove` strips the `DEPENDENCIES` `!` of a gem the user declared inside a `source "https://rubygems.org" do` block, so every frozen install fails after the unwindEvtl. vergeben @mikolalysenko hat das vor 1 Tag übernommen. Offenagent:triaged bug bughunt pm:bundler priority:p1
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 80/100
SocketDev/socket-patch#1056 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
agent:triaged bug bughunt pm:bundler priority:p1
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 85/100
SocketDev/socket-patch#896 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
agent:triaged bug bughunt pm:yarn-berry priority:p1
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 73/100
SocketDev/socket-patch#783 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
agent:triaged bug bughunt pm:cargo priority:p2
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 84/100
SocketDev/socket-patch#651 · 3 Kommentare ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
Alle Issues in SocketDev/socket-patch
Ähnliche Issues
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 72/100
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
bug good first issue
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 84/100
repowise-dev/repowise#3374 ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag
-
awaiting-response bug needs-triage
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 72/100
wildcard/caro#1562 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 3 Tagen
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 75/100
objectionary/sodg.rs#301 ·
-
Schwierigkeit 2/5 1-3 Stunden Anfängerfreundlichkeit 62/100
HakanSeven12/OpenCADStudio#1706 · 1 Kommentar ·
Maintainer antworten meist innerhalb von 1 Tag