Perform dependency review on PR #578
Conversation
WalkthroughA new GitHub Actions workflow file named Changes
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Dependency Review✅ No vulnerabilities or license issues or OpenSSF Scorecard issues found.OpenSSF Scorecard
Scanned Files
|
okpedersen
force-pushed
the
dependency-graph-transitive-dependencies
branch
from
313c9ea to
59491fa
Compare
![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
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/dependency-submission.yaml (2)
3-7: Consider including all protected branches in the trigger configuration.While targeting the
mainbranch is good, consider extending this to other protected branches if they exist in your repository to ensure consistent dependency review across all important branches.on: pull_request: branches: - 'main' + - 'release/*' + - 'develop'
25-25: Remove redundant condition.The
if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'condition is redundant since the workflow is already configured to only run on pull requests in the trigger configuration.- if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/dependency-submission.yaml(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: Build container image
- GitHub Check: Build and run tests
- GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
- GitHub Check: Build and run tests
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/dependency-submission.yaml (1)
10-12: Well-documented permissions following the principle of least privilege!The permissions are correctly configured with clear documentation explaining their necessity.
| with: | ||
| comment-summary-in-pr: always | ||
| fail-on-severity: moderate |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding license policy configuration.
Since one of the PR objectives is to ensure compliance with licensing requirements, consider adding license policy configuration to automatically fail on disallowed licenses.
with:
comment-summary-in-pr: always
fail-on-severity: moderate
+ fail-on-scopes: runtime
+ license-check:
+ severity: high
+ disallow:
+ - GPL-1.0-or-later
+ - AGPL-1.0-or-later📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| with: | |
| comment-summary-in-pr: always | |
| fail-on-severity: moderate | |
| with: | |
| comment-summary-in-pr: always | |
| fail-on-severity: moderate | |
| fail-on-scopes: runtime | |
| license-check: | |
| severity: high | |
| disallow: | |
| - GPL-1.0-or-later | |
| - AGPL-1.0-or-later |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not correct configuration, but disallowing certain licenses is possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@okpedersen I apologize for the incorrect configuration format. Here's the correct way to configure license restrictions:
with:
comment-summary-in-pr: always
fail-on-severity: moderate
deny-licenses: GPL-1.0-or-later, AGPL-1.0-or-laterThe deny-licenses option takes a comma-separated list of SPDX-compliant license identifiers that you want to prohibit.
🔗 Analysis chain
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Fetch the README of the dependency-review-action repository
gh api repos/actions/dependency-review-action/contents/README.md --jq .content | base64 -d
Length of output: 189
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Fetch the README content directly
gh api /repos/actions/dependency-review-action/readme --header "Accept: application/vnd.github.raw"
Length of output: 18639
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: okpedersen
PR: kartverket/skiperator#578
File: .github/workflows/dependency-submission.yaml:26-28
Timestamp: 2025-01-07T17:39:31.659Z
Learning: In GitHub's dependency-review-action, license restrictions are configured using either `deny-licenses` for a blocklist or `allow-licenses` for an allowlist, specified as comma-separated SPDX-compliant identifiers directly under the `with` section.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
okpedersen
force-pushed
the
dependency-graph-transitive-dependencies
branch
from
434a5cb to
2b6cad1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yaml (1)
20-20: Remove redundant condition.The condition
if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'is redundant since the workflow is already configured to run only on pull requests in theonsection.- if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yaml(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: Build container image
- GitHub Check: Build and run tests
- GitHub Check: Analyze (go)
- GitHub Check: Build and run tests
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yaml (1)
3-7: Consider extending protection to all protected branches.While protecting the
mainbranch is good, consider extending this workflow to other protected branches if they exist in your repository.Let's check for other protected branches:
✅ Verification successful
Current branch protection configuration is optimal
The workflow is correctly configured to run on all protected branches, as 'main' is the only protected branch in the repository. No changes are needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for protected branches in the repository gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/branches --jq '.[] | select(.protected == true) | .name'Length of output: 93
| permissions: | ||
| contents: write # Required for submitting dependencies | ||
| pull-requests: write # Required for dependency review comments |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reduce permission scope for better security.
The contents: write permission appears to be too broad. According to GitHub's documentation, contents: read should be sufficient for dependency review.
Apply this diff to reduce the permission scope:
permissions:
- contents: write # Required for submitting dependencies
+ contents: read # Required for dependency review
pull-requests: write # Required for dependency review comments📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| permissions: | |
| contents: write # Required for submitting dependencies | |
| pull-requests: write # Required for dependency review comments | |
| permissions: | |
| contents: read # Required for dependency review | |
| pull-requests: write # Required for dependency review comments |
| with: | ||
| comment-summary-in-pr: always | ||
| fail-on-severity: moderate |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance dependency review configuration.
Consider adding additional configuration options to strengthen the security and compliance checks:
- Configure license policies using
deny-licensesorallow-licenses - Specify which dependency scopes to check using
fail-on-scopes
Apply this diff to add these configurations:
with:
comment-summary-in-pr: always
fail-on-severity: moderate
+ # Add specific licenses to deny (e.g., GPL, AGPL)
+ deny-licenses: 'GPL-1.0-or-later, AGPL-1.0-or-later'
+ # Alternatively, explicitly allow specific licenses
+ allow-licenses: 'MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause'
+ # Check both production and development dependencies
+ fail-on-scopes: 'runtime, development'📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| with: | |
| comment-summary-in-pr: always | |
| fail-on-severity: moderate | |
| with: | |
| comment-summary-in-pr: always | |
| fail-on-severity: moderate | |
| # Add specific licenses to deny (e.g., GPL, AGPL) | |
| deny-licenses: 'GPL-1.0-or-later, AGPL-1.0-or-later' | |
| # Alternatively, explicitly allow specific licenses | |
| allow-licenses: 'MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause' | |
| # Check both production and development dependencies | |
| fail-on-scopes: 'runtime, development' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yaml (1)
20-20: Remove redundant condition.The condition
if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'is redundant since the workflow is already configured to run only on pull requests in theonsection.- if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
🛑 Comments failed to post (2)
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yaml (2)
10-12:
⚠️ Potential issueReduce permission scope for better security.
The
contents: writepermission appears to be too broad. According to GitHub's documentation,contents: readshould be sufficient for dependency review.Apply this diff to reduce the permission scope:
permissions: - contents: write # Required for submitting dependencies + contents: read # Required for dependency review pull-requests: write # Required for dependency review comments📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.permissions: contents: read # Required for dependency review pull-requests: write # Required for dependency review comments
21-23: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance dependency review configuration.
Consider adding additional configuration options to strengthen the security and compliance checks:
- Configure license policies using
deny-licensesorallow-licenses- Specify which dependency scopes to check using
fail-on-scopesApply this diff to add these configurations:
with: comment-summary-in-pr: always fail-on-severity: moderate + # Add specific licenses to deny (e.g., GPL, AGPL) + deny-licenses: 'GPL-1.0-or-later, AGPL-1.0-or-later' + # Alternatively, explicitly allow specific licenses + allow-licenses: 'MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause' + # Check both production and development dependencies + fail-on-scopes: 'runtime, development'📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.with: comment-summary-in-pr: always fail-on-severity: moderate # Add specific licenses to deny (e.g., GPL, AGPL) deny-licenses: 'GPL-1.0-or-later, AGPL-1.0-or-later' # Alternatively, explicitly allow specific licenses allow-licenses: 'MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause' # Check both production and development dependencies fail-on-scopes: 'runtime, development'
Dependency review will warn about vulnerabilities in new dependencies, fail for new dependencies with moderate severity vulnerabilities and supply information about licenses.
okpedersen
force-pushed
the
dependency-graph-transitive-dependencies
branch
from
2b6cad1 to
3bf5dc8
Compare
Dependency review will warn about vulnerabilities in new dependencies,
fail for new dependencies with moderate severity vulnerabilities and
supply information about licenses.
Summary by CodeRabbit