"X is configured" and tool PASSes from a file's existence: buf.yaml without a lint section, Checkstyle with only NoHttpCheck, golangci `default: none` with staticcheck listed as disabled, gosec excluded for the only path

Aberta
  • Algo errado?
#249 0 comentários 0 reações 0 responsáveis Ver no GitHub

Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia

Ninguém assumiu esta issue ainda.

Avaliação

Dificuldade
4/5
Tempo estimado
3-5 dias
Facilidade para iniciantes
30/100
Tipo de issue
Bug
Clareza
Razoavelmente clara
Status de atividade
Ativa
Stack de tecnologia
go, java, python, yaml
Domínio
security, tooling

Direção de pesquisa

Start with the four analyzers named in the issue: the staticcheck pattern in ecosystems/go.py (around lines 185-189), the gosec and funlen handling that uses _golangci_enables, the BUF_LINT rule in project_validator/ecosystems/protobuf.py, and the Checkstyle check. Reproduce each false PASS against the small config snippets in the repro lines. Done means each validator reads the relevant section of its config, such as enabled linters or lint rules, and reports the true state, with tests for each case.

Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.

Descrição

opentelemetry-proto: "buf lint is configured (buf.yaml) but does not run" — buf.yaml has only breaking:; spring-petclinic: static-analysis PASS on a Checkstyle whose only module flags http:// URLs; cli/cli: compiler-warnings PASS "go vet, staticcheck" though .golangci.yml starts from default: none and lists staticcheck under "to enable later"; protovalidate: security-scanning PASS on gosec that is enable-all but excluded for path: tools/, where every Go file lives. A defined_by(files=…) claim should check the relevant section, and linter configs should be read for enabled/disabled sets.

Evidence from the corpus audit

cli/cli / compiler-warnings
  • kind: FALSE_POSITIVE
  • actual: PASS (Go place): strict Go linters are enabled: go vet, staticcheck
  • expected: WARN/FAIL for Go: staticcheck is explicitly not enabled; the config starts from default: none and lists it under "To enable later".
  • evidence: .golangci.yml:3-4: linters: / default: none; :27-30: # To enable later due to too many issues, and confirm we need them: / # - gosec / # - staticcheck / # - errcheck
  • evidence (validator): ecosystems/go.py:185-189: # golangci-lint runs both by default. / pattern("staticcheck", rf"\bstaticcheck\b|{RUNS_GOLANGCI_LINT}"): any golangci-lint run is credited as staticcheck regardless of linters.default/linters.enable (the _golangci_enables logic used for gosec and funlen is not applied here).
  • repro: .golangci.yml with version: "2", linters: {default: none, enable: [govet]}; workflow step uses: golangci/golangci-lint-action@v9. Expect staticcheck missing.
  • confidence: high
spring-projects/spring-petclinic / static-analysis
  • kind: FALSE_POSITIVE
  • actual: JVM: Checkstyle (src/checkstyle/nohttp-checkstyle-suppressions.xml, src/checkstyle/nohttp-checkstyle.xml) runs (JVM part passes)
  • expected: WARN/FAIL for JVM: the Checkstyle configuration's only module is NoHttpCheck (flags http:// URLs), which is not static analysis of the code
  • evidence: src/checkstyle/nohttp-checkstyle.xml:6: <module name="io.spring.nohttp.checkstyle.check.NoHttpCheck"/>; pom.xml:236-242: <id>nohttp-checkstyle-validation</id> ... <goal>check</goal> ... <configLocation>src/checkstyle/nohttp-checkstyle.xml</configLocation>
  • repro: the same two files + run: ./mvnw -B verify
  • confidence: medium (the rule "Checkstyle runs" is met literally; the configuration content decides whether it analyses anything)
bufbuild/protovalidate / security-scanning
  • kind: FALSE_POSITIVE
  • actual: PASS: CI scans the code for security problems with golangci-lint's gosec
  • expected: FAIL/WARN: gosec is enabled by enable-all but excluded for path: tools/, and every Go file in the repository is under tools/ (the only Go module is tools/go.mod), so gosec reports nothing. (Caveat: the file says version: "2" but uses v1 keys linters-settings/issues.exclude-rules; whether v2.13.1 honours them is not verifiable here, but the validator did not consider the exclusion at all.)
  • evidence: .golangci.yml:57-63: issues: / exclude-rules: / - path: tools/ / linters: / - gosec / - forbidigo; go.work:1-3 lists only ./tools; map unit {"directory": "tools", "role": "tooling", "languages": ["Go"]} is the only Go unit.
  • repro: .golangci.yml with enable-all: true and issues.exclude-rules: [{path: ".", linters: [gosec]}].
  • confidence: medium
open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto / static-analysis
  • kind: MESSAGE
  • actual: FAIL: Protobuf: buf lint is configured (buf.yaml) but does not run
  • expected: FAIL: buf lint does not run — but nothing configures it: buf.yaml has only a breaking: section; the "is configured" wording comes from rules=defined_by(files=("buf.yaml",)), which treats the file's existence as a lint configuration.
  • evidence: buf.yaml:1-6 (entire file): version: v1 / # See https://docs.buf.build/breaking/configuration / breaking: / use: / - WIRE; validator project_validator/ecosystems/protobuf.py BUF_LINT = analyzer(..., rules=defined_by(files=(BUF_SETTINGS.name,))).
  • repro: buf.yaml with only breaking: {use: [WIRE]} and no buf CI step.
  • confidence: medium

Found by the regression-corpus audit (235 real repositories, one or more per ecosystem profile; corpus and expected results in corpus/). Evidence is quoted from the audited checkouts at the commits pinned in corpus/projects.toml; <checkouts>/<owner>__<repo> is such a checkout.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01ByTXNqDWdM7HzezrFtEvQt

Linguagem predominante
Python
Estrelas
4
Forks
1
Merge médio
10h 41min
PRs com merge (30d)
79

Preparar o ambiente

Este projeto não oferece contêiner de desenvolvimento, Dockerfile nem guia de contribuição, então a configuração fica por sua conta: comece pelo README e veja nosso guia da primeira contribuição para os passos gerais.

Primeiros passos

  1. Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
  2. Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
  3. Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
  4. Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.

Mais de cpp-best-practices/project_validator

Todas as issues de cpp-best-practices/project_validator

Issues semelhantes

Mais issues de Python

Receba novas issues na sua caixa de entrada

Um resumo curto de issues do GitHub para quem está começando.