fix: validate command input to prevent execution of untrusted input

[vikassaini77]

Before submitting

• Self-reviewed the code
• Updated documentation, follow Google-style
• Added docs entry for autogeneration (if new functions/classes)
• Added/updated tests
• All tests pass locally

Description

Type of Change

• 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• ✨ New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• 📝 Documentation update
• 🧪 Test update
• 🔨 Refactoring (no functional changes)
• ⚡ Performance improvement
• 🔧 Chore (dependencies, configs, etc.)

Motivation and Context

Closes #(issue)

Changes Made

Testing

• I have tested this code locally
• I have added unit tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• All new and existing tests pass

Google Colab (optional)

Colab link:

Screenshots/Videos (optional)

Additional Notes

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[Borda]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.

@vikassaini77 mind sign it pls otherwise there is nothing I can do to land it... 🦝

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR hardens the examples/time_in_zone streaming helper by adding an allowlist check before executing external commands, reducing the risk of running unexpected executables when run_command() is called.

Changes:

• Added an allowlist (docker, ffmpeg) validation in run_command() before invoking subprocess.run.
• Replaced the prior “TODO validate command input” note with a concrete validation step.

[Borda]

@vikassaini77 pls follow the contribution guidelines. In particular, it means you shall write PR description why it does and how it fixes or improves this package, even I see based on your changes a value in your contribution 🦝

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 66 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 81%. Comparing base (07d182b) to head (c974c71).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on develop.

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (40%) is below the target coverage (95%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (81%) is below the target coverage (95%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           develop   #2336   +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage       81%     81%   -0%     
=======================================
  Files           66      66           
  Lines         9077    9127   +50     
=======================================
+ Hits          7377    7378    +1     
- Misses        1700    1749   +49     

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.