fix(security): preserve exact CI evidence while redacting provider secrets - #1242
fix(security): preserve exact CI evidence while redacting provider secrets#1242seonghobae wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
|
👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request. When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down. I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job! For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs. For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task. |
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 37 minutes Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository. How can I continue?Wait for the limit to reset, then comment An organization admin can change what happens after included review limits in Billing. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits within each organization. For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
seonghobae
changed the title
![opencode-agent[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1549082?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed.
Findings
1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval
- Problem: Failed same-head checks remain for
9bdfcbdaf4d079de3b346e1584dd505c5043afd3. - Root cause: The model-unavailable evidence fallback is allowed only when peer GitHub Checks are complete and clean.
- Fix: Read and fix the failed check logs below, then rerun the current-head checks.
- Regression test: Keep the model-unavailable fallback gated on an empty failed-check rollup.
Failed checks:
- Strix Security Scan/strix: FAILURE (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32645130529/job/97208123150)
- Strix Security Scan/strix: failure (https://github.com/ContextualWisdomLab/.github/actions/runs/32645130529/job/97208123150)
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: ci-log-evidence-redaction.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: ci-log-evidence-redaction.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["CI script: redact_sensitive_log.py"]
S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script: redact_sensitive_log.py"]
R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_opencode_security_boundaries.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_security_boundaries.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode could not approve from deterministic current-head evidence because GitHub Checks have failed. Findings1. HIGH Current-head GitHub Checks - Fix failed required checks before approval
Failed checks:
Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file: CHANGELOG.md"]
R1 --> V1["required checks"]
Evidence --> S2["Docs: ci-log-evidence-redaction.md"]
S2 --> I2["operator or user guidance"]
I2 --> R2["Review risk: Docs: ci-log-evidence-redaction.md"]
R2 --> V2["docs review"]
Evidence --> S3["CI script: redact_sensitive_log.py"]
S3 --> I3["review and security gate shell path"]
I3 --> R3["Review risk: CI script: redact_sensitive_log.py"]
R3 --> V3["bash -n plus Strix self-test"]
Evidence --> S4["Test: test_opencode_security_boundaries.py"]
S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test: test_opencode_security_boundaries.py"]
R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
|
1 participant
What\n\n- consolidate provider-prefixed token redaction into one compiled expression\n- redact documented Stripe
sk_test_andsk_live_secret prefixes\n- redact opaque AWS/Azure values only when a sensitive assignment or JSON key supplies context\n- preserve unlabeled 40-character commit SHAs and other fixed-length audit evidence\n- remove the generatedpr_body.txtartifact and unsupported performance claim\n\n## Why\n\nLength-only 40/88-character patterns erased exact Git identities and other legitimate CI evidence. That weakens protected-review traceability while still failing to distinguish opaque credentials reliably.\n\n## Verification\n\nExact head9bdfcbdaf4d079de3b346e1584dd505c5043afd3:\n\n- full Python: 1,394 passed, 1 skipped, 16 subtests\n- statement/branch coverage: 100% (8,345statements,3,212branches)\n- production docstrings: 100%\n- focused security boundary: 37 passed\n- Python compilation andgit diff --check: pass\n\n## Standards and evidence\n\nSeedocs/doctoring/ci-log-evidence-redaction.mdfor the OWASP, AWS, Azure, and Stripe source-backed boundary and APA 7th references.\n\nNo real credential or organization data is stored in fixtures or documentation.