semgrep VS SLF4J

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

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.

For generally code analysis, I used Semgrep in the past.

For these cases, let me introduce you to my favorite static code analysis tool: semgrep. It's a free Open Source tool that you can install and use right now (it only starts costing money if you want to use their dashboard to view the results, which is entirely optional, and all code scanning runs on your device - code is never uploaded to any servers). As stated briefly, semgrep searches for code matching specific patterns, taking the semantics of the code into account (hence, semantic grep). You can use it for security checks based on a large set of detection rules curated by the semgrep community, but where it really shines is when you start writing rules for your own use cases.

A few years ago, my team moved from Java to Go. Working on Go projects, we encountered a wide variety of logging frameworks with different APIs, configuration, and formatting. We soon found ourselves longing for a logging abstraction layer like Java’s slf4j, which had proven invaluable for use in reusable libraries or configuring and debugging production systems. So, not long after moving to Go, we began working toward replacing what we had lost in slf4j.

I'm not familiar with Serilog as I code mostly in Java, use slf4j (logs to stdout) and our apps send logs to Cloudwatch using the task definition's awslogs configuration. I prefer it this way because I can customize the log configurations in my task definitions. Also the default stream name has this format prefix-name/container-name/ecs-task-id so I can easily identify the logs of the task I want to look at. I haven't experienced any downsides with this approach and our apps publish a shit ton of logs. Cloudwatch approach looks like you can customize the stream name?

Java -> Logback, Log4j2, JDK (Java Util Logging), Slf4j, e.t.c.

slf4j para padronização dos logs;

SLF4J

> My God. Logging in protobuf?

Yes, or any other data format and/or transport protocol.

I'm surprised this is up for debate.

> Logging is the lowest of all debugging utilities - its the first thing you ever do writing software - “hello world”. And, while I admire structural logging, the truth is printing strings remains (truly) the lowest common denominator across software developers.

This sort of comment is terribly miopic. You can have a logging API, and then configure your logging to transport the events anywhere, any way. This is a terribly basic feature and requirement, and one that comes out of the box with some systems. Check how SLF4J[1] is pervasive in Java, and how any SLF4J implementation offers logging to stdout or a local file as a very specific and basic usecase.

It turns out that nowadays most developers write software that runs on many computers that aren't stashed over or under their desks, and thus they need efficient and convenient ways to check what's happening either in a node or in all deployments.

[1] https://www.slf4j.org/

> Then apache decides to put new people on log4j, do a backward incompatible v2 design that nevertheless is worse than slf4j. Why?

slf4j itself isn't a logging framework. It's a facade to logging frameworks.

Simple Logging Facade for Java ( https://www.slf4j.org )

It needs a logging framework behind it - log4j, log4j2, logback, commons, JUL.

The question is "why do log4j2?"

Logback went from the log4j1.x path ( https://logback.qos.ch )

Log4j2 has a lot of features that weren't present when the project started ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log4j#Apache_Log4j_2 ).

There is a licensing difference between Logback (LGPL) and Log4jx (Apache Commons).

I think the Go designers were seeing the mess in other platforms (e.g. Java's SLF4J) and just decided not to play that game from the start. I'm sure it was intentional that Go logging is not a pluggable API. I like that Go is opinionated, but there are some opinions I disagree with. This particular opinion was defeatist and guaranteed a mess rather than make even a small effort to make life easier for some if not all. END RANT.

Also, I'd like you to pay attention to the log consumer. You see, when the E2E scenario fails, it's not always obvious why. Sometimes to understand the source of the problem you have to dig into containers' logs. Thankfully the log consumer allows us to forward a container's logs to any SLF4J logger instance. In this project, containers' logs are forwarded to regular text files (you can find the Logback configuration in the repository). Though it's much better to transfer logs to external logging facility (e.g. Kibana).