nilaway
reviewdog
nilaway | reviewdog | |
---|---|---|
3 | 12 | |
2,808 | 7,406 | |
5.6% | 1.6% | |
8.7 | 9.5 | |
7 days ago | 7 days ago | |
Go | Go | |
Apache License 2.0 | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
nilaway
-
Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong
I would have more respect if they at least admitted to the flawed type system but instead say it is not a problem. It is disappointing to see past mistakes repeated in a new programming language. Even the Java language creator was humble enough to admit fault for the null pointer problem. The Go devs do not have such humility.
https://github.com/uber-go/nilaway
-
Practical nil panic detection for Go
We'd be interested in the general characteristics of the most common ones you are seeing. If you have a chance to file a couple issues (and haven't done so yet): https://github.com/uber-go/nilaway/issues
We definitely have gotten some useful reports there already since the blog post!
We are aware of a number of sources of false positives and actively trying to drive them down (prioritizing the patterns that are common in our codebase, but very much interested in making the tool useful to others too!).
Some sources of false positives are fundamental (any non-trivial type system will forbid some programs which are otherwise safe in ways that can't be proven statically), others need complex in-development features for the tool to understand (e.g. contacts, such as "foo(...) returns nil iff its third argument is nil"), and some are just a matter of adding a library model or similar small change and we just haven't run into it ourselves.
reviewdog
-
Code reviews and Suggestions from SARIF report
I build a general converter from SARIF to Reviewdog Diagnostic Format (RDFormat), then use Reviewdog to give suggested code changes as well as the context of the changes for PR reviewing.
-
My CNCF LFX Mentorship Spring 2023 Project at Kubescape
I helped improve the Kubescape GitHub Actions fix suggestions code review process, where I created the workflow which works by collecting the SARIF (Static Analysis Results Interchange Format) file that kubescape generates. Then, with the help of HollowMan6/sarif4reviewdog, convert the SARIF file into RDFormat (Reviewdog Diagnostic Format) and generate reviews for code fix suggestions on GitHub Actions using Reviewdog. I also helped add the “fix" object support for the Kubescape-generated SARIF report.
- Reviewdog: Code analysis regardless of programming language
-
Goast: Generic static analysis for Go Abstract Syntax Tree by OPA/Rego
Static analysis should be performed continuously by CI (Continuous Integration) to prevent unintentional inclusion of code. The JSON output schema is compatible with reviewdog and can be used as is in reviewdog.
-
reviewdog-gitlab-webhook: Trigger reviewdog checks for GitLab repo using webhooks
Trigger reviewdog checks on a repository via GitLab webhook rather than CI job.
-
How to reuse steps in Tekton tasks
# parameters - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: report-file default: reportfile description: Report file with errors - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: format default: golint description: Format of error input from the task - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: reporter default: local description: Reporter type for reviewdog https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporters - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: diff default: git diff FETCH_HEAD description: Diff command https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporters # workspaces - op: add path: /spec/workspaces/- value: name: token description: | Workspace which contains a token file for Github Pull Request comments. Must have a token file with the Github API access token # steps - op: add path: /spec/steps/- value: name: reviewdog-report image: golangci/golangci-lint:v1.31-alpine # both have the same workspace name workingDir: $(workspaces.source.path) script: | #!/bin/sh set -ue wget -O - -q https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(go env GOPATH)/bin export REVIEWDOG_GITHUB_API_TOKEN=$(cat $(workspaces.token.path)/token) cat $(params.reportfile) | reviewdog -f=$(params.format) -diff="$(params.diff)"
-
I manage my dev.to blog in GitHub repository
In reference article, use prettier to format the markdown and the code snippets. I implement a text review using textlint and reviewdog in addition to that.
-
Automated code review for on-prem
JetBrains Qodana is one option, but currently requires glue code to map the findings to MR comments. I'm using reviewdog for it but I'm hoping they'll eventually fix it to have native integration
-
GitHub Action to annotate tsc errors;
I'm trying to make a GitHub action which automatically runs tsc to find TypeScript errors. Those errors should be annotated inline in the PR/Commits. I found reviewdog, which should work perfectly for this - but I played around with that for about 4 hours now and can't seem to get it to report errors successfully. tsc exits with code 2, but reviewdog still says that everything went fine. So I'm trying to find another solution for this, has anyone here done this before? For comparison, I managed to do the same thing with ESLint by adding a custom formatter to the eslint command (-f param), which then gets automatically picked up by the GitHub action - but I can't find something similar for tsc..
-
Incident with GitHub Actions, Issues, Pull Requests, and Webhooks
I used ReviewDog to wire in Qodana results, so I hear you about wishing it was built in, but it is achievable: https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporter-gitlab-merge...
Based on my contact with GitLab's built-in other scanning tools, I wouldn't trust their vuln management further than I could throw it, so you're likely not missing much on that front
What are some alternatives?
syft - CLI tool and library for generating a Software Bill of Materials from container images and filesystems
Qodana - 📝 Source repository of Qodana Help
go - The Go programming language
prettier - Prettier is an opinionated code formatter.
grype - A vulnerability scanner for container images and filesystems
datree - Prevent Kubernetes misconfigurations from reaching production (again 😤 )! From code to cloud, Datree provides an E2E policy enforcement solution to run automatic checks for rule violations. See our docs: https://hub.datree.io
tfsec - Security scanner for your Terraform code
kube-score - Kubernetes object analysis with recommendations for improved reliability and security. kube-score actively prevents downtime and bugs in your Kubernetes YAML and Charts. Static code analysis for Kubernetes.
clair - Vulnerability Static Analysis for Containers
ls-lint - An extremely fast directory and filename linter - Bring some structure to your project filesystem
symbolicator - Native Symbolication as a Service
editorconfig-vim - EditorConfig plugin for Vim