@swc-react/truncated
React and Next.js wrapper of the @spectrum-web-components/truncated component
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Maintainers
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:@spectrum-web-components/truncated | AI (dependencies): Direct upstream dependency from the same Adobe Spectrum Web Components project; expected and stable for this wrapper package. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Consistent across all versions of this package; no provenance is the norm for this publisher. | ai |
Versions (showing 15 of 15)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 1.11.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.11.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.11.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.10.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.9.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.6.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.5.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.4.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.3.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.2.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.1.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.1.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.0.3 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.0.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 1.0.0 | 2 / 0 |
v1.5.0
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rajrock38) than the most recent previously approved version (rubenc) on 2025-04-15, but rajrock38 is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.4.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.3.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.2.0
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rubenc) than the most recent previously approved version (rajrock38) on 2025-02-27, but rubenc is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.1.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.1.1
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rajrock38) than the most recent previously approved version (rubenc) on 2025-01-29, but rajrock38 is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.0.3
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rubenc) than the most recent previously approved version (rajrock38) on 2024-12-09, but rubenc is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.0.1
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rajrock38) than the most recent previously approved version (rubenc) on 2024-11-11, but rajrock38 is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.0.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.