Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow excluding analyzers globally #1180

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 20, 2024
Merged

Allow excluding analyzers globally #1180

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 20, 2024

Conversation

Rgvs
Copy link
Contributor

@Rgvs Rgvs commented Aug 16, 2024

fixes #1175

Copy link
Member

@ccojocar ccojocar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for this contribution! I left a few comments which it would be great if you could address them. Thanks again!

analyzers/analyzerslist.go Show resolved Hide resolved
analyzers/analyzerslist.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
analyzers/analyzerslist.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
analyzers/analyzerslist.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rule.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
testutils/g103_samples.go Show resolved Hide resolved
testutils/g109_samples.go Show resolved Hide resolved
testutils/g109_samples.go Show resolved Hide resolved
@ccojocar
Copy link
Member

I would also recommend to rebase this since there are some updates in the main. Thanks

@Rgvs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rgvs commented Aug 19, 2024

Thanks for quick feedback.
The analyzerslist.go code i wrote is technically a copy of rulelist.go. Some of your comments would deviate from rulelist.go. In view of that, would you still like me to go ahead and make those changes?

@ccojocar
Copy link
Member

ccojocar commented Aug 19, 2024

The analyzerslist.go code i wrote is technically a copy of rulelist.go. Some of your comments would deviate from rulelist.go. In view of that, would you still like me to go ahead and make those changes?

Please go ahead. It's fine they don't need to be identical. These are anyhow small things. Thanks for addressing my comments!

@ccojocar
Copy link
Member

Is this fixing #1175 issue?

@Rgvs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rgvs commented Aug 19, 2024

Yes, but partly.
Allows to exclude analyzers using -exclude option in cmd line.
This does not fix skipping code by comments like // #nosec G602

* This change does not exclude analyzers for inline comment
* Changed the expected issues count for G103, G109 samples for test. Previously G115 has been included in the issue count
* Show analyzers IDs(G115, G602) in gosec usage help
* See securego#1175
@Rgvs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Rgvs commented Aug 19, 2024

Addressed the Comments. Please Re-review. Thank you.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 20, 2024

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 60.86957% with 27 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.15%. Comparing base (18135b4) to head (889dcf0).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files Patch % Lines
cmd/gosec/main.go 0.00% 27 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1180      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.53%   67.15%   -0.38%     
==========================================
  Files          72       74       +2     
  Lines        3933     3992      +59     
==========================================
+ Hits         2656     2681      +25     
- Misses       1160     1189      +29     
- Partials      117      122       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@ccojocar ccojocar merged commit 81cda2f into securego:master Aug 20, 2024
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

CheckAnalyzers doesn't seem to respect exclude or nosec (e.g. G602)
3 participants