Skip to content

Conversation

@joakim-intezer
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@intezer intezer deleted a comment from notion-workspace bot Aug 7, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@davidt99 davidt99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Missing version bump and changes update

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There is a File object, put the logic there

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The FileAnalysis(Analysis) class doesn't look like the right place to put this logic because the behavior of the endpoint is different. This endpoint directly takes a sha256 and doesn't need to lookup the latest analysis. If it needs to be part of that class, it is best implemented as a classmethod. Would that be your recommendation?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added this in #164

def __init__(self, api_client: Optional[IntezerApiClient] = None):
self._api = IntezerApi(api_client or api.get_global_api())

def _get_result_from_task(self, result_url: str):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The logic is most likely already implemented

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The endpoint doesn't return the required json data for the check_status method to be used. The wait logic has to be checked using the HTTP status code.
image

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added this in #164

@joakim-intezer joakim-intezer force-pushed the feature/code_reuse_by_block branch from 1f6e43d to 1b265c2 Compare September 26, 2025 16:08
@davidt99 davidt99 force-pushed the feature/code_reuse_by_block branch from 2193bd6 to 34af90a Compare October 15, 2025 09:06
@davidt99 davidt99 merged commit 966b5f1 into master Oct 19, 2025
8 checks passed
@davidt99 davidt99 deleted the feature/code_reuse_by_block branch October 19, 2025 08:30
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.

3 participants