fix 🐛: Increase redaction level in PR check workflow #19

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

This change updates the redaction level from false to 100 in the .gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml file. This ensures that more sensitive information is redacted during pull request checks, enhancing security.

This change updates the redaction level from `false` to `100` in the `.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml` file. This ensures that more sensitive information is redacted during pull request checks, enhancing security.
Jose added 12 commits 2026-02-14 10:18:58 +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.
refactor ♻️: Refactor Gitleaks command option from --config-path to --config
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 12s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 35s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 5s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 13s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
7b5c802689
Updated the configuration path option for Gitleaks from '--config-path' to '--config' to simplify usage and improve consistency with other tools.
chore 📦: Update redaction setting in PR check workflow
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 12s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 5s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 35s
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 2s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
eb5bde86d6
This commit updates the redaction setting from `--redact=10` to `--redact=false` in the `.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml` file. This change ensures that no redaction occurs during the PR check process, maintaining full visibility and integrity of the data being checked.
Jose added 1 commit 2026-02-14 10:19:04 +01:00
fix 🐛: Increase redaction level in PR check workflow
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 24s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 4s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 16s
PR check / handle_failures (pull_request) Successful in 2s
PR check / handle_success (pull_request) Has been skipped
76f035768c
This change updates the redaction level from `false` to `100` in the `.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml` file. This ensures that more sensitive information is redacted during pull request checks, enhancing security.
gitea-actions bot reviewed 2026-02-14 10:19:34 +01:00
gitea-actions bot left a comment

Review Summary

  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml: This workflow file appears to have been removed completely. The given diff shows a deleted file with no corresponding changes. However, if this is part of a larger context and the removal of this file is intended, it seems fine from the logic perspective since the file doesn't seem to be critical for the overall functionality. If this workflow file was accidentally removed and you want to reinstate it, here's the content for reference: yaml # https://github.com/kekxv/pr-check name: PR check on: pull_request: types: [opened, synchronize] jobs: leak_test: name: Gitleaks runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - name: Checkout code uses: actions/checkout@v6 with: github-server-url: ${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }} - name: Install Gitleaks run: | curl -sSL https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks/releases/download/v8.30.0/gitleaks_8.30.0_linux_x64.tar.gz \ | tar -xz sudo mv gitleaks /usr/local/bin/ - name: Run Gitleaks run: | gitleaks dir . \ --redact=10 \ --verbose \ --exit-code 1 lint_test: name: lint tests runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - name: Checkout code uses: actions/checkout@v6 with: github-server-url: ${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }} - name: Install Node.js uses: actions/setup-node@v4 with: node-version: 20 - name: Run markdownlint run: npx markdownlint-cli2 "**/*.md" "#node_modules" - name: Set up Python uses: actions/setup-python@v5 with: python-version: "3.14" - name: Install ansible-lint and yamllint run: | python -m pip install --upgrade pip pip install ansible ansible-lint yamllint - name: Run yamllint run: | yamllint . - name: Run ansible-lint run: | ansible-lint handle_failures: runs-on: ubuntu-latest needs: [leak_test, lint_test] if: needs.leak_test.result != 'success' || needs.lint_test.result != 'success' steps: - name: Comment, label, and close PR run: | API="${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }}/api/v1/repos/${{ github.repository }}" PR="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" TOKEN="${{ secrets.GITEA_TOKEN }}" # ... (rest of the handle_failures steps) handle_success: runs-on: ubuntu-latest needs: [leak_test, lint_test] if: needs.leak_test.result == 'success' && needs.lint_test.result == 'success' steps: - name: Update comment, remove label, reopen PR run: | API="${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }}/api/v1/repos/${{ github.repository }}" PR="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" TOKEN="${{ secrets.GITEA_TOKEN }}" # ... (rest of the handle_success steps)
  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml: Changes Summary: This Git diff represents a new workflow file for GitHub Actions, providing security and lint checks on pull requests. The changes appear well-structured, secure, and maintainable. There are no issues with Score >= 2.
  • .gitleaks.toml: Summary: This is a configuration for Gitleaks, a tool that scans source code repositories for secrets and sensitive data. The provided changes focus on setting up allowlist rules to ignore certain false positives, such as placeholders in the README file, and defining specific rules for identifying generic API keys and Sidekiq secret. LGTM (The remaining changes are related to Gitleaks configuration and do not pose any issues.)
  • README.md: Changes in README.md: The README file has been updated to better conform to the conventions used by Ansible roles, and some minor text adjustments have been made. Here's a breakdown of the changes: - The title of the document now properly identifies it as a "README" (Line 1). - The heading for Key Features has been updated to simply "Features" (Line 10). - A heading for Utilities has been added, replacing API utilities (Line 29). - The directory structure of the role has been described more accurately (Line 31). Overall, these changes improve readability and maintainability. However, there are no logic, security, performance, or major maintainability issues to report as per your review guidelines.
# Review Summary * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml**: This workflow file appears to have been removed completely. The given diff shows a deleted file with no corresponding changes. However, if this is part of a larger context and the removal of this file is intended, it seems fine from the logic perspective since the file doesn't seem to be critical for the overall functionality. If this workflow file was accidentally removed and you want to reinstate it, here's the content for reference: ```yaml # https://github.com/kekxv/pr-check name: PR check on: pull_request: types: [opened, synchronize] jobs: leak_test: name: Gitleaks runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - name: Checkout code uses: actions/checkout@v6 with: github-server-url: ${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }} - name: Install Gitleaks run: | curl -sSL https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks/releases/download/v8.30.0/gitleaks_8.30.0_linux_x64.tar.gz \ | tar -xz sudo mv gitleaks /usr/local/bin/ - name: Run Gitleaks run: | gitleaks dir . \ --redact=10 \ --verbose \ --exit-code 1 lint_test: name: lint tests runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - name: Checkout code uses: actions/checkout@v6 with: github-server-url: ${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }} - name: Install Node.js uses: actions/setup-node@v4 with: node-version: 20 - name: Run markdownlint run: npx markdownlint-cli2 "**/*.md" "#node_modules" - name: Set up Python uses: actions/setup-python@v5 with: python-version: "3.14" - name: Install ansible-lint and yamllint run: | python -m pip install --upgrade pip pip install ansible ansible-lint yamllint - name: Run yamllint run: | yamllint . - name: Run ansible-lint run: | ansible-lint handle_failures: runs-on: ubuntu-latest needs: [leak_test, lint_test] if: needs.leak_test.result != 'success' || needs.lint_test.result != 'success' steps: - name: Comment, label, and close PR run: | API="${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }}/api/v1/repos/${{ github.repository }}" PR="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" TOKEN="${{ secrets.GITEA_TOKEN }}" # ... (rest of the handle_failures steps) handle_success: runs-on: ubuntu-latest needs: [leak_test, lint_test] if: needs.leak_test.result == 'success' && needs.lint_test.result == 'success' steps: - name: Update comment, remove label, reopen PR run: | API="${{ vars.GIT_SERVER_URL }}/api/v1/repos/${{ github.repository }}" PR="${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}" TOKEN="${{ secrets.GITEA_TOKEN }}" # ... (rest of the handle_success steps) ``` * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml**: **Changes Summary:** This Git diff represents a new workflow file for GitHub Actions, providing security and lint checks on pull requests. The changes appear well-structured, secure, and maintainable. There are no issues with Score >= 2. * **.gitleaks.toml**: **Summary:** This is a configuration for Gitleaks, a tool that scans source code repositories for secrets and sensitive data. The provided changes focus on setting up allowlist rules to ignore certain false positives, such as placeholders in the README file, and defining specific rules for identifying generic API keys and Sidekiq secret. LGTM (The remaining changes are related to Gitleaks configuration and do not pose any issues.) * **README.md**: Changes in README.md: The README file has been updated to better conform to the conventions used by Ansible roles, and some minor text adjustments have been made. Here's a breakdown of the changes: - The title of the document now properly identifies it as a "README" (Line 1). - The heading for Key Features has been updated to simply "Features" (Line 10). - A heading for Utilities has been added, replacing API utilities (Line 29). - The directory structure of the role has been described more accurately (Line 31). Overall, these changes improve readability and maintainability. However, there are no logic, security, performance, or major maintainability issues to report as per your review guidelines.
@@ -0,0 +20,4 @@
- name: Install Gitleaks
run: |
curl -sSL https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks/releases/download/v8.30.0/gitleaks_8.30.0_linux_x64.tar.gz \
| tar -xz

[Lines 15-23] [Score: 3] Consider using a specific action for checking out the code to avoid differences in behavior between actions and self-hosted runners. For example, you can use actions/checkout@v6 instead of the default actions/checkout.

[Lines 15-23] [Score: 3] Consider using a specific action for checking out the code to avoid differences in behavior between actions and self-hosted runners. For example, you can use `actions/checkout@v6` instead of the default `actions/checkout`.
@@ -0,0 +45,4 @@
uses: actions/setup-node@v4
with:
node-version: 20

[Lines 47-48] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the LTS (Long Term Support) version instead of a specific minor version. This will help ensure compatibility with future changes in Node.js and prevent unexpected issues. For example, you can use 16.x or 14.x.

[Lines 47-48] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the LTS (Long Term Support) version instead of a specific minor version. This will help ensure compatibility with future changes in Node.js and prevent unexpected issues. For example, you can use `16.x` or `14.x`.
@@ -0,0 +53,4 @@
uses: actions/setup-python@v5
with:
python-version: "3.14"

[Lines 55-56] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the latest point release of Python instead of a specific minor version for maximum compatibility and security. For example, you can use 3.9.x.

[Lines 55-56] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the latest point release of Python instead of a specific minor version for maximum compatibility and security. For example, you can use `3.9.x`.
@@ -10,3 +10,3 @@
## 📌 Key Features
## 📌 Features
**Proxmox VE Optimized** - Specifically designed for Proxmox Virtual Environment

[Score: 2] Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this constant 'a'. This will help future maintainers understand its role in the code.

[Score: 2] Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this constant 'a'. This will help future maintainers understand its role in the code.
gitea-actions bot reviewed 2026-02-14 10:20:33 +01:00
gitea-actions bot left a comment

Review Summary

  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml: This Git diff shows the removal of a workflow file (.gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml). The removed file was responsible for running various checks on pull requests, including leak tests, linting, and CI checks. The removal of this file potentially impacts security, performance, and maintainability as it removes automated checks that were previously in place. Since the file is completely deleted, it's assumed that there are no more checks being performed for newly opened pull requests.
  • .gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml: This code is a GitHub Actions workflow for CI checks, including leak detection with Gitleaks and linting with markdownlint, yamllint, and ansible-lint. The workflow looks good overall, but there are a few suggestions to improve maintainability: Despite these recommendations, the workflow seems well-structured and effective at ensuring code quality and security.
  • .gitleaks.toml: Addition of Gitleaks configuration This is the addition of a configuration file for Gitleaks, a tool used to scan git repositories for secrets. The allowlist section is being added to ignore specific false positives, such as placeholder strings and badge URLs in the README.md file. However, there's room for improvement regarding the clarity of the comments. I would suggest rephrasing them to be more descriptive: This change makes it clearer that these rules are for exemptions rather than general allowance, which may help others understand the purpose of the configuration more easily.
  • README.md: Summary: This change is a refactoring of the README file for better clarity and organization. There are no critical or major issues found in this diff, so the code appears to be well-structured from a logic, security, performance, and maintainability standpoint. However, there's one minor suggestion for improving readability:
# Review Summary * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml**: This Git diff shows the removal of a workflow file (`.gitea/workflows/pr-check-yaml`). The removed file was responsible for running various checks on pull requests, including leak tests, linting, and CI checks. The removal of this file potentially impacts security, performance, and maintainability as it removes automated checks that were previously in place. Since the file is completely deleted, it's assumed that there are no more checks being performed for newly opened pull requests. * **.gitea/workflows/pr-check.yaml**: This code is a GitHub Actions workflow for CI checks, including leak detection with Gitleaks and linting with markdownlint, yamllint, and ansible-lint. The workflow looks good overall, but there are a few suggestions to improve maintainability: Despite these recommendations, the workflow seems well-structured and effective at ensuring code quality and security. * **.gitleaks.toml**: **Addition of Gitleaks configuration** This is the addition of a configuration file for Gitleaks, a tool used to scan git repositories for secrets. The allowlist section is being added to ignore specific false positives, such as placeholder strings and badge URLs in the README.md file. However, there's room for improvement regarding the clarity of the comments. I would suggest rephrasing them to be more descriptive: This change makes it clearer that these rules are for exemptions rather than general allowance, which may help others understand the purpose of the configuration more easily. * **README.md**: **Summary:** This change is a refactoring of the README file for better clarity and organization. There are no critical or major issues found in this diff, so the code appears to be well-structured from a logic, security, performance, and maintainability standpoint. However, there's one minor suggestion for improving readability:
@@ -0,0 +20,4 @@
- name: Install Gitleaks
run: |
curl -sSL https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks/releases/download/v8.30.0/gitleaks_8.30.0_linux_x64.tar.gz \
| tar -xz

[Lines 15-23] [Score: 3] Consider using a specific action for checking out the code to avoid differences in behavior between actions and self-hosted runners. For example, you can use actions/checkout@v6 instead of the default actions/checkout.

[Lines 15-23] [Score: 3] Consider using a specific action for checking out the code to avoid differences in behavior between actions and self-hosted runners. For example, you can use `actions/checkout@v6` instead of the default `actions/checkout`.
@@ -0,0 +45,4 @@
uses: actions/setup-node@v4
with:
node-version: 20

[Lines 47-48] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the LTS (Long Term Support) version instead of a specific minor version. This will help ensure compatibility with future changes in Node.js and prevent unexpected issues. For example, you can use 16.x or 14.x.

[Lines 47-48] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the LTS (Long Term Support) version instead of a specific minor version. This will help ensure compatibility with future changes in Node.js and prevent unexpected issues. For example, you can use `16.x` or `14.x`.
@@ -0,0 +53,4 @@
uses: actions/setup-python@v5
with:
python-version: "3.14"

[Lines 55-56] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the latest point release of Python instead of a specific minor version for maximum compatibility and security. For example, you can use 3.9.x.

[Lines 55-56] [Score: 3] Consider explicitly specifying the latest point release of Python instead of a specific minor version for maximum compatibility and security. For example, you can use `3.9.x`.
@@ -10,3 +10,3 @@
## 📌 Key Features
## 📌 Features
**Proxmox VE Optimized** - Specifically designed for Proxmox Virtual Environment

[Score: 2] Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this constant 'a'. This will help future maintainers understand its role in the code.

[Score: 2] Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of this constant 'a'. This will help future maintainers understand its role in the code.

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 10:21:01 +01:00
Some checks failed
ansible-lint / Ansible Lint (push) Successful in 11s
Gitleaks Scan / gitleaks (push) Successful in 4s
ai-reviews / Review PR (pull_request) Successful in 24s
Markdown Lint / markdown-lint (push) Successful in 5s
PR check / Gitleaks (pull_request) Failing after 4s
PR check / lint tests (pull_request) Successful in 16s
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.