v2.0.x Chore - Improved utilities' scripts

[reactive-firewall]

.github/tool_checkmake.sh (6)

66-70: Consider improving PATH modification robustness.

While the PATH modification is necessary, consider these improvements:

1. Add a check to ensure the directory exists and contains the checkmake executable
2. Use a local variable for path validation before modifying PATH

 if [[ -d "./checkmake" ]] && [[ ":$PATH:" != *":./checkmake:"* ]] ; then
+    if [[ -x "./checkmake/checkmake" ]]; then
         PATH="${PATH:+"$PATH:"}./checkmake" ;
         export PATH ;
+    else
+        printf "%s\n" "::warning file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=PATH::Local checkmake found but not executable." >&2
+    fi
 fi

🧰 Tools

🪛 Shellcheck

[warning] 68-68: PATH is the shell search path. Use another name.

(SC2123)

---

72-86: Enhance error handling in check_command function.

The function is well-documented and follows CEP-7 standards. Consider these improvements:

1. Add validation for empty or whitespace-only command names
2. Handle potential errors from command substitution

 function check_command() {
-    test -z "$1" && { printf "%s\n" "::warning file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=BUG::Command name is required to check for existence." >&2 ; exit 64 ; } ;
+    if [[ -z "${1// }" ]]; then
+        printf "%s\n" "::error file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=BUG::Command name is required and cannot be empty or whitespace." >&2
+        exit 64
+    fi
     local cmd="$1" ;
-    test -x "$(command -v ${cmd})" || { printf "%s\n" "::error file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=MISSING::Required command '${cmd}' is not found." >&2 ; exit 126 ; } ;
+    local cmd_path
+    if ! cmd_path=$(command -v ${cmd} 2>/dev/null); then
+        printf "%s\n" "::error file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=MISSING::Required command '${cmd}' is not found." >&2
+        exit 126
+    fi
+    if [[ ! -x "${cmd_path}" ]]; then
+        printf "%s\n" "::error file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=PERMISSION::Found '${cmd}' at '${cmd_path}' but it is not executable." >&2
+        exit 126
+    fi
 }

---

88-94: Consider using an array for required commands.

To improve maintainability and reduce repetition, consider using an array for required commands.

-check_command sed ;
-check_command grep ;
-check_command cut ;
-check_command go ;
-check_command checkmake ;
+readonly REQUIRED_COMMANDS=(
+    sed
+    grep
+    cut
+    go
+    checkmake
+)
+
+for cmd in "${REQUIRED_COMMANDS[@]}"; do
+    check_command "${cmd}"
+done

---

107-112: Consider enhancing parameter validation.

While the basic validation is correct, consider adding:

1. Maximum argument check
2. File path validation for potential security issues

-if [[ ( "$#" -lt 1 ) ]]; then
+if [[ "$#" -lt 1 ]] || [[ "$#" -gt 1 ]]; then
     usage
 fi
+
+# Validate file path (no path traversal)
+if [[ "${1}" == *".."* ]]; then
+    printf "%s\n" "::error file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=SECURITY::Path traversal detected in argument." >&2
+    exit 1
+fi
 readonly FILE="${1}"
 readonly EMSG="Checkmake linter complained."

---

114-118: Consider additional file checks.

While the existence check is good, consider adding:

1. Read permission check
2. File type validation (ensure it's a regular file)

-if [[ ! ( -f "${FILE}" ) ]]; then
+if [[ ! -f "${FILE}" ]] || [[ ! -r "${FILE}" ]]; then
     printf "%s\n" "::error file=${FILE},title=MISSING::File '${FILE}' not found." >&2
     exit 64
 fi
+
+if [[ -L "${FILE}" ]]; then
+    printf "%s\n" "::warning file=${FILE},title=SYMLINK::File is a symbolic link." >&2
+fi

---

143-143: Add error handling for the main execution.

Consider capturing and handling the return value from process_checkmake_output.

-process_checkmake_output "${FILE}" "${EMSG}"
+if ! process_checkmake_output "${FILE}" "${EMSG}"; then
+    exit 1
+fi

🪛 Shellcheck

.github/tool_checkmake.sh

[warning] 68-68: PATH is the shell search path. Use another name.

(SC2123)

.github/tool_checkmake.sh (2)

1-61: LGTM! Well-structured header with comprehensive disclaimer.

The script begins with a proper shebang line and includes a thorough disclaimer covering warranties and liability limitations.

---

96-105: LGTM! Well-documented usage function.

The function is well-documented following CEP-7 standards and has a clear, concise implementation.

Originally posted by @coderabbitai[bot] in #184 (review)

---

also:

.github/tool_checkmake.sh (4)

1-61: Add a brief summary comment before the disclaimer.

While the disclaimer is comprehensive, adding a brief summary comment at the top would help readers quickly understand the script's purpose.

Add this comment after the shebang line:

#! /bin/bash
+# Tool to lint Makefiles using checkmake.
+# Validates Makefile syntax and enforces best practices.
+
# Disclaimer of Warranties.

---

80-84: Enhance error message for missing command argument.

The warning message for missing command argument could be more descriptive.

Consider this improvement:

-	test -z "$1" && { printf "%s\n" "::warning file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=BUG::Command name is required to check for existence." >&2 ; exit 64 ; } ;
+	test -z "$1" && { printf "%s\n" "::error file=${SCRIPT_NAME},title=INVALID_USAGE::check_command requires a command name argument." >&2 ; exit 64 ; } ;

---

125-129: Consider adding Makefile validation.

The code checks if the file exists but doesn't verify if it's actually a Makefile.

Consider adding this validation:

 if [[ ! ( -f "${FILE}" ) ]]; then
 	printf "%s\n" "::error file=${FILE},title=MISSING::File '${FILE}' not found." >&2
 	exit 64
+elif [[ ! "${FILE}" =~ Makefile|\.mk$ ]]; then
+	printf "%s\n" "::error file=${FILE},title=INVALID::File '${FILE}' doesn't appear to be a Makefile." >&2
+	exit 65
 fi

---

131-132: Add CEP-7 compliant documentation for process_checkmake_output function.

The function lacks proper documentation.

Add this documentation:

+# process_checkmake_output processes the output of checkmake for a given file.
+#
+# Args:
+#   $1: The file to check
+#   $2: The error message to display
+#
+# Returns:
+#   0 if no lint errors found
+#   1 if lint errors found or checkmake failed
 process_checkmake_output() {

[reactive-firewall]

@coderabbitai, please analyze and update this GHI #203, considering recent changes to .github/tool_checkmake.sh

[reactive-firewall]

@coderabbitai, please read and update this GHI #203, considering recent changes to .github/tool_checkmake.sh and summarize specific changes that are still to be implemented if any to resolve the GHI #203

[coderabbitai]

Tip

For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes.

🧩 Analysis chain

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the content of issue #203
gh issue view 203 --json title,body,comments

# Check the current state of the tool_checkmake.sh file
cat .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Check if there are any recent commits that modified the file
git log -n 5 --pretty=format:"%h %s" -- .github/tool_checkmake.sh

Length of output: 15027

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if there were any recent commits modifying the file
git log -n 5 --pretty=format:"%h %ad %s" --date=short -- .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Let's compare with PR #184 which was mentioned in the issue
gh pr view 184 --json files,mergedAt

# Check recent PRs that might have included changes to this file
gh pr list --state merged --json number,title,mergedAt,files --limit 10 | jq '.[] | select(.files[].path | contains("tool_checkmake.sh"))'

Length of output: 7872

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the specific change that was made in PR #285
git show $(git log -n 1 --pretty=format:"%h" -- .github/tool_checkmake.sh) -- .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Let's also check if there's any specific commit message mentioning this file
git log --grep="tool_checkmake" -n 5

Length of output: 0

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Try using a more direct comparison approach
# First, get the file's content at the time of PR #184 (initial addition)
git show $(git log --reverse --pretty=format:"%h" -- .github/tool_checkmake.sh | head -1):.github/tool_checkmake.sh > /tmp/tool_checkmake_pr184.sh

# Get the current file content
cat .github/tool_checkmake.sh > /tmp/tool_checkmake_current.sh

# Compare the two versions
diff -u /tmp/tool_checkmake_pr184.sh /tmp/tool_checkmake_current.sh

# Let's examine each suggestion from Issue #203 and check if it has been implemented
echo "Analyzing implementation status of Issue #203 suggestions:"

# Check PATH modification robustness (lines 66-70)
echo "1. Checking PATH modification robustness suggestion:"
grep -A 5 "if \[\[ -d \"./checkmake\" \]\]" .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Check enhanced error handling in check_command function (lines 72-86)
echo "2. Checking error handling improvements in check_command function:"
grep -A 15 "function check_command" .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Check array for required commands (lines 88-94)
echo "3. Checking array implementation for required commands:"
grep -A 10 "Check required commands" .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Check parameter validation (lines 107-112)
echo "4. Checking enhanced parameter validation:"
grep -A 10 "Validate parameters" .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Check additional file checks (lines 114-118)
echo "5. Checking additional file checks:"
grep -A 8 "Check if file exists" .github/tool_checkmake.sh

# Check error handling for main execution (line 143)
echo "6. Checking error handling for main execution:"
tail -5 .github/tool_checkmake.sh

Length of output: 2844

---

@reactive-firewall After reviewing GHI #203 and analyzing the current implementation of .github/tool_checkmake.sh, I can confirm that none of the suggested improvements have been implemented yet. Here's a summary of the changes still needed to resolve Issue #203:

1. PATH modification robustness (lines 66-70):

   • Add check if ./checkmake/checkmake is executable before modifying PATH
   • Add warning message if found but not executable

2. Enhance error handling in check_command function (lines 72-86):

   • Add validation for empty or whitespace-only command names
   • Improve error handling for command substitution

3. Using an array for required commands (lines 88-94):

   • Implement an array-based approach for better maintainability

4. Enhancing parameter validation (lines 107-112):

   • Add maximum argument check
   • Add file path validation for security (prevent path traversal)

5. Additional file checks (lines 114-118):

   • Add read permission check
   • Add file type validation (symlink warning)

6. Error handling for main execution (line 143):

   • Capture and handle the return value from process_checkmake_output

7. Additional improvements:

   • Add a brief summary comment after the shebang line
   • Enhance error message for missing command argument
   • Add Makefile validation
   • Add CEP-7 compliant documentation for process_checkmake_output function

The script currently remains largely unchanged from its initial implementation in PR #184. Would you like me to provide specific code for any of these improvements?

---

🧠 Learnings used

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: .github/tool_checkmake.sh:120-141
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:34.497Z
Learning: For future reviews of the Bash script `.github/tool_checkmake.sh`, reactive-firewall prefers to keep the current implementation as it works correctly. Suggestions that add unnecessary error handling—such as those that might hide linting errors by relying on the tool's exit code instead of processing its output—should be avoided unless they offer significant benefits.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:13:01.630Z
Learning: In the multicast project, when refactoring shell scripts, prefer improving organization within a single file over splitting into multiple files, unless the benefits of modularity clearly outweigh the added complexity in security, permissions, and debugging.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:21.246Z
Learning: For future scripts, reactive-firewall prefers to use only POSIX built-ins (like `printf` instead of `echo`) to align with CEP-8 conventions.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:14.590Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to specify the full raw URL when fetching files from gists to ensure correct retrieval of content, particularly when the file is in markdown format.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T18:53:29.833Z
Learning: For future scripts, reactive-firewall prefers to keep the shebang line with an extra space (e.g., `#! /bin/bash`) as per project style.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:34.497Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP (Convention Enhancement Proposal) documents, it's important to adhere to the project's standard format and include all relevant sections such as Motivation, Detailed Explanation, Implementation Guidelines, Impact, and References.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: LICENSE.md:36-43
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:34.497Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers that I verify URLs before suggesting changes, and avoid raising hypothetical issues without verification.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#235
File: .github/workflows/makefile-lint.yml:41-52
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:13:01.630Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to suppress errors in `apt-get install` commands when individual checks of the installed packages are performed afterwards, to allow for more granular error handling.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:21.246Z
Learning: In the multicast project's shell scripts, prefer organizing code into logical sections with clear comments (e.g., "=== Environment Setup ===") to maintain readability and maintainability while keeping related functions together.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:14.590Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers that overviews and release notes include a mention of how strategies learned from the project have been applied to improve the final result.

---

Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#184
File: tests/check_pip:259-265
Timestamp: 2025-03-12T19:12:21.246Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers that code changes adhere to SOLID design principles, specifically avoiding unnecessary complexity (AHA principle), maintaining the Single Responsibility Principle, and ensuring complex work is done on separate development branches (Open/Closed Principle).