docs 📝: Comment out allowlist rule for badge URLs in README #16

Closed
Jose wants to merge 0 commits from dev into main
Owner

Updated the README to comment out the allowlist rule for badge URLs, as it is no longer necessary.

Updated the README to comment out the allowlist rule for badge URLs, as it is no longer necessary.
Jose added 10 commits 2026-02-14 10:03:37 +01:00
feat : Add PR check workflow for Gitleaks and lint tests
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 6s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
aad77acf42
This commit introduces a new pull request (PR) check workflow that includes Gitleaks for security scanning and lint tests to ensure code quality.
refactor ♻️: Refactor PR check workflow by consolidating steps and removing redundant code
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 6s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 7s
945717ffbb
This refactoring consolidates the steps in the PR check workflow, reducing redundancy and improving efficiency.
fix 🐛: Fix typo in PR check workflow comments
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 6s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
1733801fe5
Corrected a minor spelling error in the comments of the pull request check workflow to improve readability and clarity.
fix 🐛: Fix typo in PR check comment body
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 19s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 5s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 14s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Has been skipped
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
a0138b1bea
Corrected a minor spelling error in the comment body of the pull request check to improve readability and accuracy.
refactor ♻️: Refactor condition for handle_failures to run regardless of previous job results
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 6s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 6s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 19s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 5s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Failing after 9s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
dfda760d2c
This refactoring ensures that the `handle_failures` function is executed irrespective of the outcomes of previous jobs, improving the robustness and reliability of the system.
docs 📝: Update README title and compatibility matrix format
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Failing after 6s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 6s
eb5eaf7887
Updated the README title to be more descriptive and restructured the compatibility matrix for better readability.
fix 🐛: Fix PR check job condition
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 21s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 6s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 13s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 1s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
fc3b5e8507
This commit addresses an issue where the PR check job was not running as expected. The condition for triggering the job has been corrected to ensure it runs properly under all circumstances.
docs 📝: Update README.md section title and minor formatting
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 10s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 28s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 4s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 13s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 1s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
e21f9bd002
Corrected the title of a section in the README.md file and made some minor formatting adjustments for better readability.
chore 📦: Update Gitleaks configuration and README
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 12s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Failing after 5s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
c9a6f0e092
Add `--config-path .gitleaks.toml` to pr-check.yaml and create a new `.gitleaks.toml` file with allowlist and rules for security scanning. Rename 'API utilities' to 'Utilities' in the README.md table.
docs 📝: Comment out allowlist rule for badge URLs in README
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 12s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 30s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 4s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 15s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
dbd70e61ce
Updated the README to comment out the allowlist rule for badge URLs, as it is no longer necessary.
gitea-actions bot reviewed 2026-02-14 10:04:07 +01:00
gitea-actions bot left a comment

Review Summary

  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml: This Git diff indicates the deletion of a workflow file called pr-check-yaml. The deleted workflow appears to be a series of jobs and steps for performing checks such as linting, leak testing, and handling success or failure scenarios. As the file has been removed, it is not possible to perform a detailed review according to the provided guidelines. However, some potential issues that may have existed in the original workflow are: 1. Security (Score: 4): The gitleaks command used for leak testing was run without any specific configuration or sensitive data filtering, which could potentially expose secret keys, credentials, or other sensitive information found within the codebase. 2. Performance (Score: 3): The use of gitleaks might have a performance impact on the workflow due to its thorough scanning of the repository for secrets. 3. Maintainability (Score: 3): Hardcoding the GitHub API endpoint, GIT_SERVER_URL, and GITEA_TOKEN as secrets in the workflow file makes it less flexible and harder to manage when changes are required. It's generally a good practice to use environment variables or secure secrets stored in a centralized location for such configurations. Without the actual contents of the file, I cannot provide specific line comments or LGTM status. However, I strongly recommend reviewing the reasons mentioned above and ensuring that proper configuration and security measures are implemented if similar workflows are being used.
  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml: This Git diff represents a new workflow file for GitHub (.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml) that performs various checks on pull requests, including leak tests and linting. The code looks good with no issues scoring >= 2, so here's the summary: LGTM This workflow will help ensure that pull requests are thoroughly checked for potential security leaks, coding style issues, and syntax errors before they are merged into the main branch. This promotes a higher standard of code quality and reduces the risk of introducing vulnerabilities or code inconsistencies in the project.
  • .gitleaks.toml: Summary: This git diff introduces a Gitleaks configuration file to manage secrets and false positives in the project. diff File: b/.gitleaks.toml Context: Line 1: + title = "Gitleaks Config" Line 2: + Line 3: +# ========================== Line 4: +# Allowlist / False Positive Rules Line 5: +# ========================== Line 6: +# [[allowlist]] Line 7: +# description = "Ignore placeholder secrets in README.md" Line 8: +# filepath = "README.md" Line 9: +# # Add all placeholder-like patterns that trigger false positives Line 10: +# regex = "cafebabe|deadbeef|DB_PASSWORD" Line 11: + Line 12: +# [[allowlist]] Line 13: +# description = "Ignore badge URLs in README" Line 14: +# filepath = "README.md" Line 15: +# regex = "https://img.shields.io" Line 16: + Line 17: +# ========================== Line 18: +# Rules Line 19: +# ========================== Line 20: +[[rules]] Line 21: +id = "generic-api-key" Line 22: +description = "Generic API Key" Line 23: +regex = "(?i)(api[_-]?key|secret|token)=\\S+" Line 24: +entropy = 3.5 Line 25: + Line 26: +[[rules]] Line 27: +id = "sidekiq-secret" Line 28: +description = "Sidekiq Secret" Line 29: +regex = "export BUNDLE_ENTERPRISE__CONTRIBSYS__COM=\\S+" Line 30: +entropy = 2.5 LGTM
  • README.md: Brief Summary: The changes made to the README.md file focus on improving readability and maintaining consistency, but there's a small potential for confusion due to the renaming of "Key Features" section. No critical or major issues were found. LGTM
# Review Summary * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml**: This Git diff indicates the deletion of a workflow file called `pr-check-yaml`. The deleted workflow appears to be a series of jobs and steps for performing checks such as linting, leak testing, and handling success or failure scenarios. As the file has been removed, it is not possible to perform a detailed review according to the provided guidelines. However, some potential issues that may have existed in the original workflow are: 1. Security (Score: 4): The `gitleaks` command used for leak testing was run without any specific configuration or sensitive data filtering, which could potentially expose secret keys, credentials, or other sensitive information found within the codebase. 2. Performance (Score: 3): The use of `gitleaks` might have a performance impact on the workflow due to its thorough scanning of the repository for secrets. 3. Maintainability (Score: 3): Hardcoding the GitHub API endpoint, GIT_SERVER_URL, and GITEA_TOKEN as secrets in the workflow file makes it less flexible and harder to manage when changes are required. It's generally a good practice to use environment variables or secure secrets stored in a centralized location for such configurations. Without the actual contents of the file, I cannot provide specific line comments or LGTM status. However, I strongly recommend reviewing the reasons mentioned above and ensuring that proper configuration and security measures are implemented if similar workflows are being used. * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml**: This Git diff represents a new workflow file for GitHub (`.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml`) that performs various checks on pull requests, including leak tests and linting. The code looks good with no issues scoring >= 2, so here's the summary: LGTM This workflow will help ensure that pull requests are thoroughly checked for potential security leaks, coding style issues, and syntax errors before they are merged into the main branch. This promotes a higher standard of code quality and reduces the risk of introducing vulnerabilities or code inconsistencies in the project. * **.gitleaks.toml**: **Summary:** This git diff introduces a Gitleaks configuration file to manage secrets and false positives in the project. ```diff File: b/.gitleaks.toml Context: Line 1: + title = "Gitleaks Config" Line 2: + Line 3: +# ========================== Line 4: +# Allowlist / False Positive Rules Line 5: +# ========================== Line 6: +# [[allowlist]] Line 7: +# description = "Ignore placeholder secrets in README.md" Line 8: +# filepath = "README.md" Line 9: +# # Add all placeholder-like patterns that trigger false positives Line 10: +# regex = "cafebabe|deadbeef|DB_PASSWORD" Line 11: + Line 12: +# [[allowlist]] Line 13: +# description = "Ignore badge URLs in README" Line 14: +# filepath = "README.md" Line 15: +# regex = "https://img.shields.io" Line 16: + Line 17: +# ========================== Line 18: +# Rules Line 19: +# ========================== Line 20: +[[rules]] Line 21: +id = "generic-api-key" Line 22: +description = "Generic API Key" Line 23: +regex = "(?i)(api[_-]?key|secret|token)=\\S+" Line 24: +entropy = 3.5 Line 25: + Line 26: +[[rules]] Line 27: +id = "sidekiq-secret" Line 28: +description = "Sidekiq Secret" Line 29: +regex = "export BUNDLE_ENTERPRISE__CONTRIBSYS__COM=\\S+" Line 30: +entropy = 2.5 LGTM ``` * **README.md**: **Brief Summary:** The changes made to the README.md file focus on improving readability and maintaining consistency, but there's a small potential for confusion due to the renaming of "Key Features" section. No critical or major issues were found. **LGTM**

CI checks failed.

Leak: failure
Lint: success

<!--ci-failed-comment--> ❌ CI checks failed. Leak: failure Lint: success
gitea-actions bot closed this pull request 2026-02-14 10:04:31 +01:00
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 12s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 30s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 4s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 15s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped

Pull request closed

Sign in to join this conversation.