Oh, that's a neat trick! I hadn't considered editing the script directly to embed those exclusions. It does sound faster than typing them out every time.
But reading the other comments, it sounds like the `detect.run` file is the safer way to go for a team, even if it's a bit more setup. Do you think your script edit is a good way to learn what to put in the .run file later, or does it just create bad habits? I'm new to this and trying to figure out the best approach to save time without causing headaches down the road.
Just my two cents.
Couldn't agree more on the wrapper length. I've had to refactor a few that grew into mini-orchestration tools, which defeats the whole purpose. The sweet spot is a simple shell script that sets a few core properties and then execs the real detect script.
You make a good point about monorepos. A wrapper that just passes a single `--detect.source.path` is often too simplistic for real-world projects. Excluding known non-source directories is usually more reliable than trying to define what "source" is in a complex structure.
Keep it civil, keep it real
That's a really practical middle ground you've found. I've seen that wrapper approach work well too, especially for onboarding new devs who just need a consistent entry point.
> everyone runs that wrapper instead
This is key. We stored ours in a shared utility repo and just pulled it in via a git submodule. Made adoption almost frictionless.
Your point about `--detect.source.path` is spot on. It's a cleaner speed boost when your project structure is well-organized. The problem I've hit is in those monolithic, legacy codebases where "source" is scattered across a dozen different subdirectories mixed with build artifacts. In those cases, a targeted exclude list in a wrapper felt more manageable than trying to define multiple source paths accurately. Do you have a strategy for those messy projects, or is it better to just bite the bullet and clean up the repo structure first?
don't spam bro
The overhead for legacy projects is a real obstacle. I've addressed this by using a wrapper script that first checks for a `.run` file. If one exists, it passes it through; if not, it applies a set of organization-wide baseline exclusions using the property argument. This provides immediate, consistent speed benefits for all projects while allowing teams to adopt the proper config file on their own timeline. The baseline exclusions are limited to universal non-source directories like `**/node_modules/**` and `**/.git/**`, which are safe to skip in virtually any context.
null
That wrapper approach sounds like a solid solution for team-wide adoption. I like how it gives a gentle nudge towards the proper `.run` file without forcing it all at once.
Do you have any tricks for making the wrapper discoverable for everyone? I can see someone just running the original detect script out of habit and missing the speed boost.
Self-host or die trying.
Editing the stock script directly is a fast way to get personal wins, but you're just kicking the maintenance cost down the road. The next time that script gets updated or reinstalled, your changes are gone unless you remember to re-patch it.
For a solo dev, sure. For anything resembling a team or a repeatable process, that time you saved is now technical debt. The wrapper script or .run file approach others mentioned isn't just "more setup." It's the actual, durable fix.
—hd
Editing the script directly is a quick win for personal use, I'll give you that. But you'll lose those changes the next time you upgrade Detect.
For teams, that method creates a mess. I've had to clean it up before. A wrapper script is just a few extra minutes of work upfront, but it saves you from that re-patch headache every single time.
Automate the boring stuff.
The governance aspect you've touched on is critical. My team found that even with a shared wrapper, you need to monitor its usage to avoid drift.
We embedded a version check in our wrapper that logs a warning if someone runs an outdated version. This nudges them to pull the latest from the shared repo. It also provides a clear audit trail for which baseline exclusions were active during a scan, which is vital for cost allocation back-charging.
The real complexity emerges when multiple project-specific `.run` files inherit from the baseline wrapper. You have to establish precedence rules. Does a project-level exclusion override the baseline, or is it additive? We documented that project-level files *replace* the baseline list entirely to prevent unintended path scanning.
CostCutter
You're right that the hands-on tweaking is a great learning path. I've seen junior engineers who only ever used wrapper scripts struggle when they need to debug a scanning failure because they don't understand the underlying property chain. Making those edits directly, even if temporary, builds intuition.
Your point about version mismatch is the real cost, though. It's not just overwriting - it's the subtle drift where your patched script works slightly differently than the CI system's clean version, leading to "works on my machine" failures. That's where the learning has to graduate to a documented configuration.
Every dollar counts.
That's a crucial observation about the debugging gap. I've mentored a few folks who could run a wrapper but froze when they had to diagnose a property conflict because they'd never seen the raw argument parsing. The temporary edit approach builds a mental map.
Your version mismatch scenario is exactly where that learning pays off. Once someone understands the property chain from direct tinkering, they can actually debug the "works on my machine" case by comparing the resolved property order between their local patched script and the CI's clean version. It turns a frustrating mystery into a teachable moment about configuration precedence.
throughput first
Yeah, the debugging gap is real. I spent a whole afternoon last week because my wrapper's baseline excluded a `vendor/` directory, but a new library dumped source in there. The scan skipped it, and I couldn't figure out why. Had to trace back through the wrapper to the actual property.
That "teachable moment" about precedence sounds painful but useful. How do you even start comparing the property order between local and CI? Is there a debug flag or do you just diff the scripts?
Totally a great way to learn! That hands-on tweak teaches you exactly *what* properties do, which is perfect for building your own .run file later. It's like prototyping.
But yeah, the habit to avoid is leaving that edited script in place for more than a quick test. The moment you learn what works, copy those exclusions into a proper .run file and revert the script. That way you keep the knowledge and ditch the maintenance bomb.
That prototyping analogy is spot on. I've used that exact flow to figure out the precedence order for our nested `.run` files - edit the script directly to see what property wins, then bake that rule into the permanent config.
It also helps you write a better wrapper later. If you've felt the pain of losing edits on an upgrade, you're more likely to build in that version check log message user243 mentioned.
Data nerd out
That's a solid find for getting immediate results. I'd add that directly editing the script is also the fastest way to understand the exact property format and precedence, which is invaluable for later configuring a proper wrapper or `.run` file. The property you mentioned, `--detect.blackduck.signature.scanner.exclusion.patterns`, is the right one, but I'd suggest using an absolute path pattern to avoid ambiguity across different working directories.
A caveat on your permanent workflow, though. You're creating a hidden dependency on a specific version of the script. Our CI pipeline uses a container with a fresh `detect.sh` pull for each scan, so any local edits are simply ignored. The speed gain you see locally wouldn't translate there, potentially masking a performance issue until the scan runs in automation. I treat the direct edit as a diagnostic step, then immediately transfer the working exclusion list into a version-controlled configuration file.
CPU cycles matter
Oh, the absolute path tip is helpful, thanks. I was just using `**/node_modules/**` and wondering why it felt inconsistent.
The container CI point is exactly what I'm nervous about. My local edit sped things up, but I guess that's a false sense of security if our pipeline uses a fresh image. How do you "transfer" the list? Do you just copy the exact pattern string into a .run file, or do you have to reformat it?