Last chunk - Githubissues

dwertent commented 3 months ago

User description

Overview

Type

enhancement, tests

Description

Refactored postResultsAsGoroutine and postResults in backend_utils.go to improve data handling by passing report by value.
Added a new unit test Test_sendSummaryAndVulnerabilities to ensure correct behavior of sending summary and vulnerabilities in chunks.
Introduced a new test data file report.json for use in unit testing.

Changes walkthrough

Relevant files

Enhancement

backend_utils.go

Refactor BackendAdapter Methods to Improve Data Handling

adapters/v1/backend_utils.go

Changed the postResultsAsGoroutine function to not use a reference for
the report parameter.

Updated the postResults function signature to accept report by value
instead of by reference.

+3/-3

Tests

backend_utils_test.go `Add Unit Tests for Sending Summary and Vulnerabilities` adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go Added a comprehensive unit test `Test_sendSummaryAndVulnerabilities` to validate the behavior of sending summary and vulnerabilities in chunks. Introduced helper functions for reading a report from a file and simulating HTTP post requests.	+148/-0
report.json `Add Test Data for Backend Adapter Tests` adapters/v1/testdata/report.json Added a new JSON file `report.json` under testdata to be used in unit testing.	+906/-0

✨ PR-Agent usage: Comment /help on the PR to get a list of all available PR-Agent tools and their descriptions

codiumai-pr-agent[bot] commented 3 months ago

PR Description updated to latest commit (https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/commit/4e5e49eaa79dc3e0a7158879f336b21ee5b18ba4)

codiumai-pr-agent[bot] commented 3 months ago

PR Review

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	4, because the PR includes significant changes to the handling of data structures, introduces a new unit test, and involves complex logic related to handling vulnerabilities in chunks. The changes in data passing (from pointer to value and vice versa) require careful review to ensure memory management and data integrity are maintained. Additionally, the new unit test adds complexity to the review process, requiring validation of the test logic and its coverage.
🧪 Relevant tests	Yes
🔍 Possible issues	Possible Bug: Changing the method of passing `report` from pointer to value in `postResultsAsGoroutine` and `postResults` might introduce bugs related to data consistency or memory management. It's crucial to ensure that this change does not inadvertently copy data where shared references were intended, leading to stale or inconsistent data states.
🔍 Possible issues	Performance Concern: The refactoring involves changes in how data is passed and manipulated. It's important to assess the impact of these changes on performance, especially in scenarios involving large datasets.
🔒 Security concerns	No

✨ Review tool usage guide:

**Overview:** The `review` tool scans the PR code changes, and generates a PR review which includes several types of feedbacks, such as possible PR issues, security threats and relevant test in the PR. More feedbacks can be [added](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/tools/review/#general-configurations) by configuring the tool. The tool can be triggered [automatically](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/usage-guide/automations_and_usage/#github-app-automatic-tools-when-a-new-pr-is-opened) every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on any PR. - When commenting, to edit [configurations](https://github.com/Codium-ai/pr-agent/blob/main/pr_agent/settings/configuration.toml#L23) related to the review tool (`pr_reviewer` section), use the following template: ``` /review --pr_reviewer.some_config1=... --pr_reviewer.some_config2=... ``` - With a [configuration file](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/usage-guide/configuration_options/), use the following template: ``` [pr_reviewer] some_config1=... some_config2=... ``` See the review [usage page](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/tools/review/) for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

codiumai-pr-agent[bot] commented 3 months ago

PR Code Suggestions

Category	Suggestions
Best practice	Improve error handling in `fileToReport` function. ___ Consider handling the error returned by `os.ReadFile` and `json.Unmarshal` in a more graceful way instead of using `panic`. This will improve error handling and make the code more robust. For example, you could return an error from `fileToReport` and handle it appropriately in the calling function. [adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go [525-532]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-1ef2455e6cb7ab0c2f6004f70da0d86773938e594db96704cea0111c6f278a53R525-R532) ```diff b, err := os.ReadFile(path) if err != nil { - panic(err) + return nil, err } err = json.Unmarshal(b, &report) if err != nil { - panic(err) + return nil, err } +return report, nil ```
	Use `t.Fatal` or `t.Errorf` instead of `panic` for error handling in tests. ___ Instead of using a `panic` inside the test case, consider using `t.Fatal` or `t.Errorf` followed by a `return` to fail the test gracefully. This approach allows the test suite to continue running other tests and provides a clearer indication of test failures. [adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go [526-527]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-1ef2455e6cb7ab0c2f6004f70da0d86773938e594db96704cea0111c6f278a53R526-R527) ```diff if err != nil { - panic(err) + t.Fatalf("failed to read file: %v", err) } ```
	Improve error handling by checking for nil payload in `postResults`. ___ When marshaling the `report` object to JSON in `postResults`, consider handling the case where `payload` is nil due to an error. This will prevent sending invalid requests and improve error handling. [adapters/v1/backend_utils.go [75-77]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-61c1ba4bfd4f5411d6ab13fcb175c3163eac6825ba5bc06d75823cd94f8c9ca8R75-R77) ```diff payload, err := json.Marshal(report) if err != nil { - logger.L().Ctx(ctx).Error("failed to convert to json", helpers.Error(err), + logger.L().Ctx(ctx).Error("failed to convert to json", helpers.Error(err)) + errorChan <- err + return } ```
	Ensure the use of table-driven tests with subtests for clarity and maintainability. ___ Consider using table-driven tests with subtests for better organization and readability. This approach allows you to define test cases in a structured format and run them as subtests, making it easier to identify which test case fails and reducing code duplication. [adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go [617-657]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-1ef2455e6cb7ab0c2f6004f70da0d86773938e594db96704cea0111c6f278a53R617-R657) ```diff -for _, tc := range testCases { - t.Run(tc.name, func(t testing.T) { - sendWG := &sync.WaitGroup{} - sendWG.Add(len(tc.expectedPaginationMarks)) - var reports []v1.ScanResultReport - mu := &sync.Mutex{} - httpPostFunc := func(httpClient httputils.IHttpClient, fullURL string, headers map[string]string, body []byte, timeOut time.Duration) (http.Response, error) { - ... - } - a := &BackendAdapter{ - ... - } - report.Vulnerabilities = []containerscan.CommonContainerVulnerabilityResult{} - actualNextPartNum := a.sendSummaryAndVulnerabilities(ctx, report, "", tc.totalVulnerabilities, "1234", tc.firstVulnerabilitiesChunk, errChan, sendWG) - sendWG.Wait() - assert.Equal(t, tc.expectedNextPartNum, actualNextPartNum) - assert.Equal(t, len(tc.expectedPaginationMarks), len(reports)) - }) -} +// This is already using table-driven tests with subtests. No change needed. ```
Enhancement	Simplify goroutine call in `postResultsAsGoroutine` by passing pointer directly. ___ The goroutine in `postResultsAsGoroutine` is capturing the loop variable `report` by value, which is not necessary since `report` is already a pointer. You can simplify the code by passing the pointer directly to the goroutine, avoiding the need to dereference it. [adapters/v1/backend_utils.go [61-64]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-61c1ba4bfd4f5411d6ab13fcb175c3163eac6825ba5bc06d75823cd94f8c9ca8R61-R64) ```diff -go func(report v1.ScanResultReport, eventReceiverURL, imagetag string, wlid string, errorChan chan<- error, wg sync.WaitGroup) { +go func() { defer wg.Done() - a.postResults(ctx, report, eventReceiverURL, imagetag, wlid, errorChan) -}(report, eventReceiverURL, imagetag, wlid, errorChan, wg) + a.postResults(ctx, *report, eventReceiverURL, imagetag, wlid, errorChan) +}() ```

✨ Improve tool usage guide:

**Overview:** The `improve` tool scans the PR code changes, and automatically generates suggestions for improving the PR code. The tool can be triggered [automatically](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/usage-guide/automations_and_usage/#github-app-automatic-tools-when-a-new-pr-is-opened) every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on a PR. - When commenting, to edit [configurations](https://github.com/Codium-ai/pr-agent/blob/main/pr_agent/settings/configuration.toml#L78) related to the improve tool (`pr_code_suggestions` section), use the following template: ``` /improve --pr_code_suggestions.some_config1=... --pr_code_suggestions.some_config2=... ``` - With a [configuration file](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/usage-guide/configuration_options/), use the following template: ``` [pr_code_suggestions] some_config1=... some_config2=... ``` See the improve [usage page](https://pr-agent-docs.codium.ai/tools/improve/) for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

github-actions[bot] commented 3 months ago

Summary:

License scan: failure
Credentials scan: failure
Vulnerabilities scan: failure
Unit test: success
Go linting: success

Category	Suggestions
Best practice	Improve error handling in `fileToReport` function. ___ Consider handling the error returned by `os.ReadFile` and `json.Unmarshal` in a more graceful way instead of using `panic`. This will improve error handling and make the code more robust. For example, you could return an error from `fileToReport` and handle it appropriately in the calling function. [adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go [525-532]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-1ef2455e6cb7ab0c2f6004f70da0d86773938e594db96704cea0111c6f278a53R525-R532) ```diff b, err := os.ReadFile(path) if err != nil { - panic(err) + return nil, err } err = json.Unmarshal(b, &report) if err != nil { - panic(err) + return nil, err } +return report, nil ```
	Use `t.Fatal` or `t.Errorf` instead of `panic` for error handling in tests. ___ Instead of using a `panic` inside the test case, consider using `t.Fatal` or `t.Errorf` followed by a `return` to fail the test gracefully. This approach allows the test suite to continue running other tests and provides a clearer indication of test failures. [adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go [526-527]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-1ef2455e6cb7ab0c2f6004f70da0d86773938e594db96704cea0111c6f278a53R526-R527) ```diff if err != nil { - panic(err) + t.Fatalf("failed to read file: %v", err) } ```
	Improve error handling by checking for nil payload in `postResults`. ___ When marshaling the `report` object to JSON in `postResults`, consider handling the case where `payload` is nil due to an error. This will prevent sending invalid requests and improve error handling. [adapters/v1/backend_utils.go [75-77]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-61c1ba4bfd4f5411d6ab13fcb175c3163eac6825ba5bc06d75823cd94f8c9ca8R75-R77) ```diff payload, err := json.Marshal(report) if err != nil { - logger.L().Ctx(ctx).Error("failed to convert to json", helpers.Error(err), + logger.L().Ctx(ctx).Error("failed to convert to json", helpers.Error(err)) + errorChan <- err + return } ```
	Ensure the use of table-driven tests with subtests for clarity and maintainability. ___ Consider using table-driven tests with subtests for better organization and readability. This approach allows you to define test cases in a structured format and run them as subtests, making it easier to identify which test case fails and reducing code duplication. [adapters/v1/backend_utils_test.go [617-657]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-1ef2455e6cb7ab0c2f6004f70da0d86773938e594db96704cea0111c6f278a53R617-R657) ```diff -for _, tc := range testCases { - t.Run(tc.name, func(t testing.T) { - sendWG := &sync.WaitGroup{} - sendWG.Add(len(tc.expectedPaginationMarks)) - var reports []v1.ScanResultReport - mu := &sync.Mutex{} - httpPostFunc := func(httpClient httputils.IHttpClient, fullURL string, headers map[string]string, body []byte, timeOut time.Duration) (http.Response, error) { - ... - } - a := &BackendAdapter{ - ... - } - report.Vulnerabilities = []containerscan.CommonContainerVulnerabilityResult{} - actualNextPartNum := a.sendSummaryAndVulnerabilities(ctx, report, "", tc.totalVulnerabilities, "1234", tc.firstVulnerabilitiesChunk, errChan, sendWG) - sendWG.Wait() - assert.Equal(t, tc.expectedNextPartNum, actualNextPartNum) - assert.Equal(t, len(tc.expectedPaginationMarks), len(reports)) - }) -} +// This is already using table-driven tests with subtests. No change needed. ```
Enhancement	Simplify goroutine call in `postResultsAsGoroutine` by passing pointer directly. ___ The goroutine in `postResultsAsGoroutine` is capturing the loop variable `report` by value, which is not necessary since `report` is already a pointer. You can simplify the code by passing the pointer directly to the goroutine, avoiding the need to dereference it. [adapters/v1/backend_utils.go [61-64]](https://github.com/kubescape/kubevuln/pull/220/files#diff-61c1ba4bfd4f5411d6ab13fcb175c3163eac6825ba5bc06d75823cd94f8c9ca8R61-R64) ```diff -go func(report v1.ScanResultReport, eventReceiverURL, imagetag string, wlid string, errorChan chan<- error, wg sync.WaitGroup) { +go func() { defer wg.Done() - a.postResults(ctx, report, eventReceiverURL, imagetag, wlid, errorChan) -}(report, eventReceiverURL, imagetag, wlid, errorChan, wg) + a.postResults(ctx, *report, eventReceiverURL, imagetag, wlid, errorChan) +}() ```

kubescape / kubevuln

Last chunk #220

User description

Overview

Type

Description

Changes walkthrough

PR Review

PR Code Suggestions