Create scorecard.yml #173
Create scorecard.yml #173
Conversation
automate scorecard scans
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new GitHub Actions workflow named Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
github-actions
bot
added
Testing
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #173 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 98.246% 1.504% -96.742%
=============================================
Files 7 7
Lines 399 399
Branches 24 24
=============================================
- Hits 392 6 -386
- Misses 3 393 +390
+ Partials 4 0 -4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. see 7 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-12T00:41:41.731Z
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: 2024-10-21T04:40:19.258Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that reactive-firewall prefers to keep un-mapped exit codes as they are until they are ready to be mapped.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-12T03:22:28.902Z
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#110
File: docs/CI.md:32-32
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to keep the word "own" in headings when emphasizing the reader's personal test.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/CI.md:32-32
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T06:40:42.918Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to keep the word "own" in headings when emphasizing the reader's personal test.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T03:15:05.171Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP 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#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP 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#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T03:38:28.677Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#118
File: tests/check_pip:92-197
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers defining functions before they are called in Bash scripts to avoid errors due to Bash's sequential interpretation.
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (3)
14-20: LGTM! Well-structured job configuration.
The job configuration follows security best practices with properly scoped permissions, specifically granting write access only for security-events.
32-39: Verify SCORECARD_TOKEN configuration.
The workflow requires a SCORECARD_TOKEN secret for authentication. Please ensure this token:
- Has been configured in your repository secrets
- Has minimal required permissions (read-only PAT)
- Follows the official setup guide referenced in the comments
7-8: Verify the default branch name.
The workflow is configured to trigger on pushes to the "master" branch. Please verify this is the correct default branch name for your repository, as many repositories now use "main" as the default branch.
✅ Verification successful
Branch configuration is correct
The repository is indeed using "master" as its default branch, as confirmed by multiple indicators:
- Git remote shows
origin/HEAD -> origin/master - README.md badges reference the "master" branch
- Multiple CI workflows are configured for the "master" branch
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the default branch name
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name' || git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@'
Length of output: 363
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Try alternative approaches to determine the default branch
# Method 1: Check git config
git config --get init.defaultBranch
# Method 2: List all branches and their commit history
git branch -r --sort=-committerdate | head -n 5
# Method 3: Check the current branch
git branch --show-current
# Method 4: Check the repository's README.md for any branch references
if [ -f README.md ]; then
echo "README.md branch references:"
grep -i "branch" README.md
fi
Length of output: 1761
* Version bump for scorecard.yml GHAs Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
5-6: Consider optimizing the schedule time for better resource utilization.The current schedule (09:34 UTC on Fridays) seems arbitrary. Consider scheduling during off-peak hours to optimize resource utilization and avoid potential queue delays.
Suggested times:
- Late night/early morning UTC (e.g., '0 2 * * 5')
- Weekend schedule (e.g., '0 2 * * 0')
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-12T00:41:41.731Z
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: 2024-10-21T04:40:19.258Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that reactive-firewall prefers to keep un-mapped exit codes as they are until they are ready to be mapped.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-12T03:22:28.902Z
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#110
File: docs/CI.md:32-32
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to keep the word "own" in headings when emphasizing the reader's personal test.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/CI.md:32-32
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T06:40:42.918Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to keep the word "own" in headings when emphasizing the reader's personal test.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T03:15:05.171Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP 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#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP 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#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T03:38:28.677Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#118
File: tests/check_pip:92-197
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers defining functions before they are called in Bash scripts to avoid errors due to Bash's sequential interpretation.
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (3)
14-20: LGTM! Well-structured job configuration with proper permissions.
The job configuration follows security best practices by:
- Using the latest Ubuntu runner
- Explicitly declaring required permissions with clear documentation
22-53: LGTM! Well-configured workflow steps with latest action versions.
All steps are properly configured with:
- Latest action versions with pinned commits for security
- Appropriate file paths and retention settings
- Clear documentation for token creation and results publishing
34-34: Verify SCORECARD_TOKEN secret configuration.
The workflow requires the SCORECARD_TOKEN secret for authentication. Ensure this secret is configured in your repository settings.
Changes in file .github/workflows/scorecard.yml: - multiple version bumps
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (2)
5-6: Consider adjusting the schedule timing.The current schedule (9:34 UTC on Fridays) seems arbitrary. Consider aligning it with your team's working hours or during off-peak times to optimize resource usage.
45-47: Consider increasing artifact retention period.The current 5-day retention period for SARIF results might be too short for effective security analysis and historical tracking.
- retention-days: 5 + retention-days: 30
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
Pattern .github/**: * When the project is hosted on GitHub: All GitHub-specific configurations, templates, and tools should be found in the '.github' directory tree.
- 'actionlint' erroneously generates false positives when dealing with GitHub's
${{ ... }}syntax in conditionals. - 'actionlint' erroneously generates incorrect solutions when suggesting the removal of valid
${{ ... }}syntax.
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-12T00:41:41.731Z
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: 2024-10-21T04:40:19.258Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that reactive-firewall prefers to keep un-mapped exit codes as they are until they are ready to be mapped.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-12T03:22:28.902Z
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#110
File: docs/CI.md:32-32
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to keep the word "own" in headings when emphasizing the reader's personal test.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/CI.md:32-32
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T06:40:42.918Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to keep the word "own" in headings when emphasizing the reader's personal test.
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T03:15:05.171Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP 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#0
File: :0-0
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: For future reviews, remember that when drafting or updating CEP 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#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#110
File: docs/USAGE.md:66-66
Timestamp: 2024-09-17T03:38:28.677Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers to use "Caveat" as a heading instead of "Caution".
Learnt from: reactive-firewall
PR: reactive-firewall/multicast#118
File: tests/check_pip:92-197
Timestamp: 2024-10-08T21:59:30.537Z
Learning: Reactive-firewall prefers defining functions before they are called in Bash scripts to avoid errors due to Bash's sequential interpretation.
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (4)
10-11: LGTM! Following security best practices.
Setting default permissions to read-only follows the principle of least privilege.
14-20: LGTM! Well-structured job configuration.
The job configuration is clear and properly sets the required permissions for code scanning integration.
1-53: LGTM! Well-structured security workflow.
The workflow is well-configured with:
- Proper permissions following the principle of least privilege
- Pinned action versions using SHA commits
- Clear step descriptions and documentation
7-8: Verify the default branch name.
The workflow triggers on the "master" branch. If you're planning to migrate to "main" (GitHub's default), consider updating this configuration.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the default branch.
Branch configuration is correctly aligned with repository settings
The workflow configuration is correct as it matches the repository's default branch, which is set to "master". No changes are needed since the repository hasn't migrated to "main".
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify the default branch name
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name'
Length of output: 279
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the default branch using git commands
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@'
# Also check all remote branches to see the active ones
git branch -r
Length of output: 147
Summary by CodeRabbit