TilakMaddy
commented
1 month ago @alexroan Since we haven't announced the ignore pattern yet, I think we have a lot of room for improvement / flexibility. We need to take action quickly here otherwise once people start using //aderyn-ignore(detector-name) it would be a pain in the neck to change all those to //aderyn-ignore(insert-new-detector-name) ..
Although I'm merging this, please take a careful look once again and propose new changes (if any) before we release 0.3.1
I'll assign this to you in linear as well :)
Follow ups from https://github.com/Cyfrin/aderyn/pull/737
Please feel free to improve them even more.
Basically what I'm looking for is that when we write
//aderyn-ignore(rule-name)It should be CONSISTENT! We "ignore" the "wrong" thing. Therefore rule-name must specify the WRONG thing.
For example,
//aderyn-ignore(require-without-string)instead of//aderyn-ignore(require-with-string)I get it that we want to have a string as explanation in the require statement. But .. that's where the description/recommendation/hint comes into play.
Tldr; It should read like .... Here's the problem. and we're ignoring it Not like .. Here's the correct thing to do .. and we're ignoring it.
Other examples that would make sense
//aderyn-allow-next-line(require-without-string)//aderyn-allow-next-line(require-without-explanation)ETC, ETC
@alexroan Please feel free to change it up as you see makes sense