deduplication logic: add cross scanner unique_id tests and fix bug #13499
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Maffooch
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2025
dogboat
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2025
Jino-T
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2025
blakeaowens
approved these changes
Oct 24, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #13500
In certain scenario's the
DEDUPE_ALGO_UNIQUE_ID_FROM_TOOLalgorithm can set a finding from scanner type A as duplicate of a finding from scanner type B. For this algorithm this is invalid as theunique_id_from_toolfield is a parser specific value.This only happens when
deduplication_on_engagement==True. The product scope code branch already has the correct filter.django-DefectDojo/dojo/utils.py
Lines 439 to 440 in 7c0d92a
In practice I doubt many people will run into this small bug. It has been around for 5 years, so we would have noticed. So the real world impact of the bug and this PR is limited, but still I would like to get this corrected.