semgrep VS Enzyme

Semgrep OSS Owner/Maintainer: Semgrep Age: First release on GitHub on February 6th, 2020 License: GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1

Semgrep - https://semgrep.dev

For the SAST stage, I used SonarQube tool. SonarQube is an open-source platform developed by SonarSource for continuous inspection of code quality to perform automatic reviews with static analysis of code to detect bugs and code smells on more than 30 programming languages. I preferred SonarQube instead of other SAST tools because it has a detailed documentation and plugins about integration with Jenkins and SonarQube works with Java projects pretty well. Of course you can similar multi-language-supported tools such as Semgrep or language-specific tools such as Bandit.

> Not sure I understand your point.

The problem is using Treesitter (for syntax highlighting and "semantic movements") and an LSP at the same time. So if your language has a LSP, using Treesitter additionally is redundant at best and introduces inconcistency at worst.

I'm not talking about using Treesitter as the parser for the LSP.

> Most popular languages have language-specific tools

I'd say even less popular langauges like Coq^H^H^HRocq, Lean 4, Koka, Idris, Unison, ... have their "own" tools, I do not know of a language that uses a Treesitter parser in its LSP, but I do know about tools like https://semgrep.dev/ (written in OCaml) and Github's code search which use Treesitter.

Well, when I seach for "semgrep", I get a very nice corporate landing page with a "Book Demo" button. Which is a level of hassle that just isn't worth it for smaller teams, because "Book Demo" usually means "We're going to try to do a dance to see how much money we can extract from you." Which smaller teams may only want to do for a handful of key tools.

(4 years ago, I was more willing to put up with enterprise licensing. But in the last two years, I've seen way too many enterprise vendors try to squeeze every penny they can get from existing clients. An enterprise sales process now often means "Expect 30% annual price hikes once you're in too deep to back out.")

There's also an open source "semgrep" project here: https://github.com/semgrep/semgrep. But this seems to be basically a vulernability scanner, going by the README.

Whereas AST-grep seems to focus heavily on things like:

1. One-off searching: "Search my tree for this pattern."

2. Refactoring: "Replace this pattern with this other pattern."

AST-grep also includes a vulnerability scanning mode like semgrep.

It's possible that semgrep also has nice support for (1) and (2), but it isn't clearly visible on their corporate landing page or the first open source README I found.

7. Semgrep

This project is a compilation of Semgrep rules derived from the OWASP Mobile Application Security Testing Guide (MASTG) specifically for Android applications. The aim is to enhance and support Mobile Application Penetration Testing (MAPT) activities conducted by the ethical hacker community. The primary objective of these rules is to address the static tests outlined in the OWASP MASTG.

Probably Enzyme was the first to popularize component testing in React by doing shallow rendering and expecting some things to be there in the React component tree. Then React Testing library came and took component testing to a whole new level.

Enzyme is another popular testing utility for React. It allows you to manipulate and traverse React components' output, making it easier to write comprehensive tests.

ljharb is an extremely interesting person. There’s no doubting the positive impact he’s had on the OSS community and the work he’s done.

However, there are some things he does that are incomprehensible.

For example, Enzyme. Over three years ago this issue was opened for Enzyme on React 17: https://github.com/enzymejs/enzyme/issues/2429

Nothing moved for a while, and I think he said something along the lines of “if you want React 17 support, stop complaining and help”. So the community got involved. There are multiple PRs adding React 17 support. Many unofficial React 17 adapters. A lot of people have put a lot of work into this, ensuring compatibility, coverage etc. Yet to this day, none of them have been merged. Eg https://github.com/enzymejs/enzyme/pull/2564

Given the amount of time that has passed, and the work the community has put in, something is amiss. It feels like he’s now intentionally avoiding React 17+ support. But why? I don’t understand why someone would ask for help then ignore the help when it comes in. That isn’t much better than the swathe of rude/entitled comments he was getting on the issue before he locked it.

I ended up migrating to RTL, but this made many of my tests more complicated (especially compared to shallow rendering).

Enzyme Documentation

One way to do this is by writing tests for your React components. Tools like Jest and Enzyme make it easy to test your component's behavior, rendering output, and state changes. By writing tests for your components, you can ensure that they behave as expected and prevent issues before they reach production.

GitHub link: https://github.com/enzymejs/enzyme

So If you have experience with enzyme testing, where you might be checking the value of state once you click any button or you might be checking the prop value If something changes.

Enzyme offers two types of API for shallow rendering and full rendering. Both are preferred for different test scenarios and functionalities.

At Visa, I was writing unit tests for a Next.js project using components designed with Chakra UI. That's where React Testing Library came in handy. Unlike other solutions like Enzyme, I did not have to worry about the application snapshot but could instead focus on each UI element, its expected behaviour and the data it would render upon user interactions.

Superset uses Jest and React Testing Library (RTL) to write unit and integration tests. In the past we used Enzyme, but now that we're currently converting all of our class components to functional components, Enzyme cannot support our testing needs. Since RTL is better for testing functional components, we're converting all of our test files to RTL. This can be quite a learning curve - I've gone through a lot of the process so I'd like to share what I've learned so far.