Ossf/gha scorecard #6
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduced in this pull request include the addition of a new Dependabot configuration file for managing dependencies across specified directories, updates to the pipeline workflow to refine triggering conditions and ignored paths, the introduction of a new workflow for supply-chain security analysis, and enhancements to the README file with new badges and an introductory paragraph about the Bootstrapper API. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant GitHub
participant Dependabot
participant CI/CD
participant SecurityAnalysis
User->>GitHub: Create Pull Request
GitHub->>Dependabot: Check for Dependency Updates
Dependabot->>GitHub: Create Update Pull Requests
GitHub->>CI/CD: Trigger Pipeline on PR
CI/CD->>SecurityAnalysis: Run Security Analysis
SecurityAnalysis->>GitHub: Upload Results
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
1-10: Consider optimizing workflow triggersThe workflow configuration looks good, but could be enhanced in a few ways:
- Consider adding
pathsfilter to the push trigger to only run when relevant files change- The branch protection rule trigger might generate unnecessary runs
Consider this optimization:
on: branch_protection_rule: schedule: - cron: '45 17 * * 2' push: branches: [ "main" ] + paths: + - '**/*.yml' + - '**/*.yaml' + - '**/*.json' + - '**/*.xml' + - 'src/**' + - 'test/**'.github/workflows/pipelines.yml (1)
Line range hint
132-132: Great security improvement! 👍Adding the condition to prevent deployments during PR builds is an excellent security measure. This ensures that only approved changes merged into the main branch can trigger deployments.
Consider also adding branch protection rules to enforce:
- Required reviews before merging
- Status checks must pass before merging
- Administrators must follow these rules
README.md (1)
6-7: Fix typo in project descriptionThe project description is clear and informative, but there's a minor typo.
-An open-source family of assemblies (MIT license) that provide a uniform and consistent way of bootstraping your code with Program.cs paired with Startup.cs -OR- using the new `Minimal` equivalent for all project types. +An open-source family of assemblies (MIT license) that provide a uniform and consistent way of bootstrapping your code with Program.cs paired with Startup.cs -OR- using the new `Minimal` equivalent for all project types.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.github/dependabot.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/pipelines.yml(1 hunks).github/workflows/scorecard.yml(1 hunks)README.md(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .github/dependabot.yml
🔇 Additional comments (4)
.github/workflows/scorecard.yml (2)
11-18: LGTM! Job configuration follows security best practices
The job configuration is well-structured with:
- Appropriate runner selection
- Principle of least privilege in permissions
- Clear job naming
1-42: Verify workflow scheduling and potential duplicates
Let's ensure this workflow integrates well with existing CI/CD processes.
✅ Verification successful
Workflow configuration follows best practices
The verification shows:
- No duplicate security analysis workflows exist in the repository
- No scheduling conflicts with other workflows as this is the only scheduled workflow
- The workflow follows security best practices with:
- Minimal permissions using
read-allat workflow level - Specific elevated permissions only where needed
- Latest versions of all actions
- Proper artifact handling with retention policy
- Minimal permissions using
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar security analysis workflows and scheduling conflicts
# Check for similar security analysis workflows
echo "Checking for similar security workflows..."
rg -l "ossf/scorecard-action|security|analysis" .github/workflows/
# Check for workflows scheduled at similar times
echo "Checking for scheduling conflicts..."
rg "cron:" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 366
.github/workflows/pipelines.yml (1)
4-9: LGTM! Workflow trigger configuration looks good.
The changes improve the workflow by:
- Restricting PR triggers to the main branch
- Using more precise path ignore patterns
Let's verify no critical paths are being ignored:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: Path ignore patterns are safe and appropriate
Based on the comprehensive analysis:
.docfx/**contains only documentation generation configs, not affecting builds.nuget/**only contains package metadata (README, icons, release notes).codecov/**doesn't exist yet (likely placeholder for future coverage reports)**/*.mdonly excludes documentation files
The ignored paths don't contain any critical build configurations or scripts, and documentation/coverage tasks appear to be handled by separate processes.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential critical files in ignored paths
# Look for configuration files or build scripts in ignored directories
echo "Checking for critical files in ignored paths..."
fd -H -t f ".(json|yml|yaml|props|targets)$" .codecov .docfx .nuget
Length of output: 286
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the actual content of these configuration files
# to ensure they are indeed non-critical for the build process
echo "Checking docfx configuration files content:"
echo -e "\n=== docfx.json ==="
cat .docfx/docfx.json
echo -e "\n=== filterConfig.yml ==="
cat .docfx/filterConfig.yml
echo -e "\n=== toc.yml ==="
cat .docfx/toc.yml
# Also let's check if these files are referenced in any build scripts
echo -e "\n=== Checking for references to these files in build scripts ==="
rg -l "docfx\.(json|yml)" -g "*.{props,targets,yml,yaml,json,csproj,sln}"
Length of output: 2744
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if these configuration files are used in any GitHub Actions workflows
# or build-related tasks that might be affected by ignoring them
echo "Checking for docfx usage in GitHub workflows:"
rg -l "docfx" .github/workflows/
echo -e "\nChecking for documentation build steps in workflows:"
rg -A 5 "docs?|documentation|docfx" .github/workflows/
# Also check if .nuget directory contains any critical files
echo -e "\nChecking .nuget directory structure:"
fd . .nuget || echo "Directory .nuget does not exist"
# Check for any codecov configuration or usage
echo -e "\nChecking for codecov configuration and usage:"
fd . .codecov || echo "Directory .codecov does not exist"
rg -l "codecov" .github/workflows/
Length of output: 1825
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual usage of docfx and codecov in the pipeline
# to understand if ignoring these paths affects the build process
echo "Checking docfx and codecov usage in pipelines.yml:"
rg -A 10 "docfx|codecov" .github/workflows/pipelines.yml
# Check if there are separate workflows for documentation
echo -e "\nChecking for documentation-specific workflows:"
fd . .github/workflows/ -e yml -e yaml | grep -i "doc\|docs"
# Check if the ignored paths are used in other workflow files
echo -e "\nChecking for usage of ignored paths in other workflow files:"
fd . .github/workflows/ -e yml -e yaml -x grep -l "\.codecov\|\.docfx\|\.nuget"
Length of output: 879
README.md (1)
4-4: Verify badge links are accessible
The addition of status badges enhances project transparency by providing quick access to important metrics.
✅ Verification successful
Badge links are accessible and correctly configured
All badge URLs return HTTP 200 status codes, confirming they are properly configured and accessible:
- GitHub Actions workflow badge
- SonarCloud quality metrics badges
- OpenSSF Scorecard badge
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that all badge URLs are accessible
# Test each badge URL
urls=(
"https://github.com/codebeltnet/bootstrapper/actions/workflows/pipelines.yml"
"https://sonarcloud.io/dashboard?id=bootstrapper"
"https://scorecard.dev/viewer/?uri=github.com/codebeltnet/bootstrapper"
)
for url in "${urls[@]}"; do
echo "Checking $url"
curl -s -L -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "$url"
done
Length of output: 1095
| steps: | ||
| - name: "Checkout code" | ||
| uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||
| with: | ||
| persist-credentials: false | ||
|
|
||
| - name: "Run analysis" | ||
| uses: ossf/[email protected] | ||
| with: | ||
| results_file: results.sarif | ||
| results_format: sarif | ||
| publish_results: true | ||
|
|
||
| - name: "Upload artifact" | ||
| uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4 | ||
| with: | ||
| name: SARIF file | ||
| path: results.sarif | ||
| retention-days: 5 | ||
|
|
||
| - name: "Upload to code-scanning" | ||
| uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v3 | ||
| with: | ||
| sarif_file: results.sarif |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider security and maintainability improvements
While the steps are well-structured, consider these security and maintainability enhancements:
- Pin action versions to specific SHA hashes instead of version tags
- Use a reusable variable for the SARIF file path
Apply these security improvements:
- name: "Checkout code"
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
+ uses: actions/checkout@8ade135a41bc03ea155e62e844d188df1ea18608 # v4.1.0
with:
persist-credentials: false
- name: "Run analysis"
- uses: ossf/[email protected]
+ uses: ossf/scorecard-action@483ef80d5735bb0476af9ab3aa5c8ac88a6a1a29 # v2.4.0
with:
results_file: results.sarif
results_format: sarif
publish_results: true
- name: "Upload artifact"
- uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
+ uses: actions/upload-artifact@c7d193f32edcb7bfad88892161225aeda64e9392 # v4.0.0
with:
name: SARIF file
path: results.sarif
retention-days: 5
- name: "Upload to code-scanning"
- uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v3
+ uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@407ffafae6a767df3e0230c3df91b6443ae8df75 # v3.22.11
with:
sarif_file: results.sarifCommittable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
This pull request includes several changes to improve the automation and documentation of the project. The most important changes include the addition of Dependabot configuration, updates to the GitHub Actions workflows, and enhancements to the README file.
Automation and Dependency Management:
nugetpackages and GitHub Actions workflows. (.github/dependabot.yml)GitHub Actions Workflows:
pipelines.ymlworkflow to trigger on pull requests to themainbranch and adjusted the paths to ignore certain directories. (.github/workflows/pipelines.yml)mainbranch. (.github/workflows/scorecard.yml)Documentation:
README.mdfile by adding badges for CI/CD pipeline status, quality gate status, maintainability rating, reliability rating, security rating, and OpenSSF Scorecard. Also added an introductory paragraph about the project. (README.md)Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Improvements
Chores