Conversation
Not sure if this is the right place for the fix.
TODO: The actual fix is likely to correctly fill and propagate the value of `codeAnalysisExclusions` in pom.xml.
...ain/java/com/sap/cloud/sdk/cloudplatform/connectivity/ComplexDestinationPropertyFactory.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| .warn( | ||
| "Did not find any '{}' headers to add to the outgoing request, even though Authentication type '{}' is set.", | ||
| HttpHeaders.AUTHORIZATION, | ||
| AuthenticationType.TOKEN_FORWARDING); |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Insertion of sensitive information into log files
| .debug( | ||
| "Loading destination from reuse-destination-service with retrieval strategy {} and token exchange strategy {}.", | ||
| retrievalStrategy, | ||
| tokenExchangeStrategy); |
Check failure
Code scanning / CodeQL
Insertion of sensitive information into log files
|
The "Code Formatting" job in the pipeline fails if the |
I will set the modules to Public and remove the audience type Internal. |
.pipeline/config.yml
Outdated
| codeCheck: | ||
| checkstyle: | ||
| high: '3' | ||
| high: '14' | ||
| normal: '-1' | ||
| low: '-1' | ||
| findbugs: | ||
| high: '0' | ||
| high: '10' | ||
| normal: '-1' | ||
| low: '-1' | ||
| pmd: | ||
| high: '0' | ||
| high: '10' | ||
| normal: '-1' | ||
| low: '-1' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Where can we find coverageThresholds? Also adjust them if the report can be found
Can be found here and there is a TODO for adjusting it after migrating the code. Should I adjust within this PR?
Yes we should adjust the thresholds in this PR.
@newtork @KavithaSiva do you think we should investigate the difference in amount of findings?
- The PMD plugin does not find all 701 warnings, only 14
- Findbugs found 800 bugs -> did it never work before? If yes then adjust thresholds
- Discrepancy in the Checkstyle results
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi!
I don't know why I was added as a reviewer on this PR. I'm a technical writer working on Commerce Cloud. Could you please remove me? Thank you!
|
Could the PMD and CheckStyle differences be explained by the different rulesets (see root-POM changes)? |
|
LGTM, but let's wait for someone else's review. |
|
Let's get the excludes working for Jacoco coverage first... |
The process was:
cloudsdk@sap.comscriptswith their version fromscripts/pythonfrom main/v5modules-bom/pom.xml<build>section with plugins from the previous OSS version of the filebom/pom.xml:<build>section with plugins (see above)project.build.sourceEncodinginbom/pom.xmlandmodules-bom/pom.xml, required for Code Formatting check to pass. The OSS version ofmodules-bom/pom.xmlpreviously configured theencodingproperty of the formatter plugin in the build section. This should be an equivalent change.cloudsdk@sap.comfor all source code.