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

caffeine: Initial integration #12951

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

ben-manes
Copy link

Caffeine Cache is the successor to Google Guava's Cache. It had 250M downloads from Maven Central in 2024.

I have tested this locally based on your documented steps.

/cc @cpovirk

Copy link

ben-manes is integrating a new project:
- Main repo: https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine.git
- Criticality score: 0.64521

Copy link
Contributor

@DonggeLiu DonggeLiu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @ben-manes!
Is there any chance that you could help us maintain the fuzz target in caffeine repo?
OSS-Fuzz finds this easier to update it, thanks!

@ben-manes
Copy link
Author

I have fuzzing in a github action. The ossf scorecard doesn’t like that, fwiw.

@DonggeLiu
Copy link
Contributor

I have fuzzing in a github action. The ossf scorecard doesn’t like that, fwiw.

Ah sorry, I meant relocating file caffeinespecfuzzer.java from this PR to the caffeine repo only [1].
We are more than happy to run fuzzing for your project : )

This makes updating/adding fuzz targets a lot easier, without having to go through OSS-Fuzz PRs.
Let me know if that makes sense.

@ben-manes
Copy link
Author

Unfortunately I think it wouldn't provide you a benefit because the docker file would remain in this repository.

The first run failed because the external Java version was used (classfile 61, aka jdk 17) despite the project setting itself to java 21. Forcing it to compile at a minimal version passed the CI run. It more likely that something might cause us to upgrade before new fuzzers are added.

I think fuzzing is a nice technique but is not very applicable for this Java library, a bounded hash table. Those cases are well covered by extensive tests. This particular case is parsing a string input for configuration which was a good fit, but otherwise I can't think of anything helpful.

So reluctantly I think this is probably best. If scorecards accepted the project CI running it directly then I wouldn't bother you about it.

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.

2 participants