More refactoring and cleanup #198
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the 📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes across various components include updates to GitHub Actions workflows, modifications to Maven project files, enhancements to Java classes and interfaces, and the introduction of new test cases. Key updates involve the addition of input parameters for workflows, improvements in concurrency control using Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CLI as Command Line Interface
participant Executor as Command Executor
participant ModuleLoader as Module Loader
participant BindingContext as Binding Context
User->>CLI: Execute command
CLI->>Executor: Validate options
Executor->>ModuleLoader: Load module
ModuleLoader->>BindingContext: Get binding context
BindingContext-->>ModuleLoader: Return context
ModuleLoader-->>Executor: Return loaded module
Executor-->>CLI: Execute command logic
CLI-->>User: Return results
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
🛑 Comments failed to post (56)
core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/metapath/item/node/IFeatureOrhpanedDefinitionNodeItem.java (1)
18-18: 💡 Codebase verification
⚠️ Potential issueTypo confirmed in interface name and its references
The interface name
IFeatureOrhpanedDefinitionNodeItemis found in the following files:
core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/metapath/item/node/IFeatureOrhpanedDefinitionModelNodeItem.javacore/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/metapath/item/node/IFeatureOrhpanedDefinitionNodeItem.javacore/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/metapath/item/node/AbstractDefinitionNodeItem.javaPlease update all occurrences to
IFeatureOrphanedDefinitionNodeItem.🔗 Analysis chain
Fix typo in interface name
There's a typo in the interface name: "Orhpaned" should be "Orphaned".
Please apply the following change:
-public interface IFeatureOrhpanedDefinitionNodeItem<D extends IDefinition, I extends INamedInstance> +public interface IFeatureOrphanedDefinitionNodeItem<D extends IDefinition, I extends INamedInstance>Don't forget to update any references to this interface in other parts of the codebase.
To find other occurrences of this interface name, run the following command:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for occurrences of the misspelled interface name rg "IFeatureOrhpanedDefinitionNodeItem"Length of output: 778
databind/src/test/resources/content/issue187-metaschema.xml (1)
9-21: 💡 Codebase verification
Potential Infinite Recursion and Inconsistent group-as Configurations Detected.
- All references to assembly "a" use
max-occurs="unbounded", which may lead to infinite recursion if not properly controlled.- Inconsistent use of
group-asnames ("as" and "bs" inissue187-metaschema.xmlvs. only "bs" inissue184-metaschema.xml) could cause unexpected behavior.🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the recursive assembly reference and group-as usage.
The define-assembly structure is generally correct, but there are two points that require attention:
Recursive Reference: The assembly "a" references itself within its model. This creates a recursive structure that could lead to infinite nesting if not properly handled in the implementation.
Different group-as for the same assembly: The same assembly "a" is referenced twice with different group-as configurations. While this is syntactically correct, ensure that this is the intended behavior and that the implementing code can handle this structure correctly.
To verify the usage of the "a" assembly across the codebase, run the following script:
This will help ensure that the recursive structure and different group-as configurations are used consistently across the project.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for usage of assembly "a" and its group-as configurations # Search for references to assembly "a" echo "References to assembly 'a':" rg -p "ref=\"a\"" --type xml # Search for group-as configurations echo "\nGroup-as configurations for 'a':" rg -p "<group-as.*name=\"(as|bs)\"" --type xmlLength of output: 831
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify all group-as configurations for assembly "a" and check for consistent usage # Search for all group-as names associated with assembly "a" echo "All group-as names for assembly 'a':" rg -p '<assembly ref="a".*?<group-as.*name="([^"]+)"' --type xml | gawk -F'name="' '{print $2}' | cut -d'"' -f1 | sort | uniq # Check for potential infinite recursion by ensuring max-occurs is set appropriately echo "\nChecking max-occurs for assembly 'a' references to prevent infinite recursion:" rg -p '<assembly ref="a".*?max-occurs="([^"]+)"' --type xmlLength of output: 800
databind/src/test/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/io/DefaultBoundLoaderTest.java (1)
26-44: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing test robustness and coverage
While the test effectively covers the basic functionality, consider the following enhancements:
- Add error handling tests to ensure exceptions are properly thrown and handled for invalid inputs.
- Implement resource cleanup to remove temporary directories after the test.
- Parameterize the test to cover multiple scenarios with different input files and Metapath expressions.
Here's an example of how you might implement these suggestions:
@ParameterizedTest @CsvSource({ "issue187-metaschema.xml, issue187-instance.xml, //a//b, 8", // Add more test cases here }) void testMetapathEvaluationOnLoadedXmlDocument(String metaschemaFile, String instanceFile, String metapathExpression, int expectedResultSize) throws IOException, MetaschemaException { Path tempDir = null; try { URL metaschemaUrl = getClass().getResource("/content/" + metaschemaFile); URL instanceUrl = getClass().getResource("/content/" + instanceFile); IModule module = new ModuleLoader().load(Paths.get(metaschemaUrl.toURI())); IBindingContext bindingContext = IBindingContext.instance(); tempDir = Files.createTempDirectory(Paths.get("target"), "modules-"); bindingContext.registerModule(module, tempDir); IBoundLoader loader = bindingContext.newBoundLoader(); IDocumentNodeItem docItem = loader.loadAsNodeItem(Paths.get(instanceUrl.toURI())); MetapathExpression metapath = MetapathExpression.compile(metapathExpression, docItem.getStaticContext()); ISequence<?> result = metapath.evaluate(docItem); assertEquals(expectedResultSize, result.size(), String.format("Expected %d elements for expression '%s'", expectedResultSize, metapathExpression)); } finally { // Cleanup temporary directory if (tempDir != null) { Files.walk(tempDir) .sorted(Comparator.reverseOrder()) .map(Path::toFile) .forEach(File::delete); } } } @Test void testInvalidMetapathExpression() { // Test that an invalid Metapath expression throws an appropriate exception // ... } @Test void testInvalidXmlDocument() { // Test loading an invalid XML document // ... }This refactored version parameterizes the test, adds cleanup for temporary resources, and suggests additional error handling tests. It allows for easier addition of more test cases and improves overall test robustness.
🧰 Tools
🪛 ast-grep
[warning] 28-28: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (Paths.get("src/test/resources/content/issue187-metaschema.xml"))
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 32-32: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (module, Files.createTempDirectory(Paths.get("target"), "modules-"))
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 32-32: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (Paths.get("target"), "modules-")
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 36-36: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (Paths.get("src/test/resources/content/issue187-instance.xml"))
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 28-28: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (Paths.get("src/test/resources/content/issue187-metaschema.xml"))
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 32-32: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (module, Files.createTempDirectory(Paths.get("target"), "modules-"))
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 32-32: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (Paths.get("target"), "modules-")
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 36-36: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (Paths.get("src/test/resources/content/issue187-instance.xml"))
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfigurationdatabind/pom.xml (1)
7-7: 💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent version updates in module POM files.
Please update the parent version in the following POM files to
1.3.0-SNAPSHOTfor consistency:
metaschema-freemarker-support/pom.xmlmetaschema-documentation-generator/pom.xml🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM! Version and SCM tag updates are appropriate.
The changes to the parent version (1.3.0-SNAPSHOT) and SCM tag (HEAD) are consistent with moving the project into a new development cycle. This aligns well with the PR objectives of refactoring and cleanup.
Let's verify if similar changes have been made in other module POM files for consistency:
Also applies to: 27-27
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent version and SCM tag updates across all POM files # Test 1: Check for consistent parent version updates echo "Checking parent version updates:" rg -A 1 '<artifactId>metaschema-framework</artifactId>' **/pom.xml # Test 2: Check for consistent SCM tag updates echo "Checking SCM tag updates:" rg '<tag>' **/pom.xmlLength of output: 2475
databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/model/metaschema/impl/ChoiceModelContainerSupport.java (1)
103-103: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing null check implementation
While the added assertion helps catch potential null objects in the choices list, there are a few considerations:
- Assertions are typically disabled in production, limiting the effectiveness of this check.
- The current placement only catches null objects after the first iteration.
Consider the following improvements:
- Replace the assertion with an explicit null check that throws an
IllegalArgumentException:for (Object obj : ObjectUtils.notNull(binding.getChoices())) { - assert obj != null; + if (obj == null) { + throw new IllegalArgumentException("Choice object cannot be null"); + } IBoundInstanceModelGroupedAssembly objInstance = (IBoundInstanceModelGroupedAssembly) instance.getItemInstance(obj); // ... rest of the code }
- Alternatively, use a null-safe iteration method to skip null elements:
-for (Object obj : ObjectUtils.notNull(binding.getChoices())) { - assert obj != null; +for (Object obj : ObjectUtils.notNull(binding.getChoices()).stream().filter(Objects::nonNull).collect(Collectors.toList())) { IBoundInstanceModelGroupedAssembly objInstance = (IBoundInstanceModelGroupedAssembly) instance.getItemInstance(obj); // ... rest of the code }These approaches provide more robust null handling and maintain the integrity of the choice processing.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/model/metaschema/impl/ChoiceGroupModelContainerSupport.java (1)
102-103: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a more robust null-checking approach.
While the added assertion provides an additional safety check during development, it may not be the most effective approach for preventing null pointer exceptions in production code. Consider the following suggestions:
Instead of using an assertion, you could use
Objects.requireNonNull(obj)at the start of the loop. This would throw aNullPointerExceptionwith a custom message ifobjis null, even in production environments.Alternatively, you could filter out null values before processing the list:
for (Object obj : ObjectUtils.notNull(binding.getChoices()).stream() .filter(Objects::nonNull) .collect(Collectors.toList())) { // ... existing code ... }This approach would skip any null values in the list without throwing an exception.
Also, there's a TODO comment above this loop mentioning "make 'instances' a constant". Consider addressing this TODO by extracting the
binding.getChoices()call into a constant or method if it's used multiple times in the class.Would you like me to provide a code snippet implementing one of these suggestions?
core/pom.xml (1)
7-7: 💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent version updates across modules
The project version was updated to 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT in
core/pom.xml, but this update is not reflected in other modules'pom.xmlfiles. Please ensure all modules are updated to maintain version consistency across the project.
- Verify and update the version in the following modules'
pom.xmlfiles:
databind/pom.xmlmetaschema-cli/pom.xml- (Add any additional modules as necessary)
🔗 Analysis chain
Version update to 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT
The project version has been updated from 1.2.0 to 1.3.0-SNAPSHOT. This change indicates the start of development for the next release version.
To ensure consistency across the project, let's verify if this version update has been applied to other modules:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for consistent version updates across modules echo "Checking version consistency across modules:" grep -r "<version>1.3.0-SNAPSHOT</version>" --include="pom.xml"Length of output: 2343
databind/src/test/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/testing/model/ModelTest.java (1)
432-434:
⚠️ Potential issueFix JSON string construction to use valid syntax.
The current implementation uses single quotes for JSON string construction, which is not valid JSON syntax. JSON requires double quotes for string delimiters.
Please modify the JSON string construction to use double quotes. Here's the corrected version:
- .append('{') - .append(" \"root-assembly-with-fields\": { }") - .append('}') + .append("{") + .append(" \"root-assembly-with-fields\": {}") + .append("}")This change ensures that the JSON string is properly formatted and will be correctly parsed by the JSON deserializer.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/model/xml/ExternalConstraintsModulePostProcessor.java (1)
21-23:
⚠️ Potential issueUse
@deprecatedJavadoc Tag for ConsistencyThe deprecation notice in the Javadoc should use the
@deprecatedtag to properly indicate deprecation in generated documentation tools.Apply this diff to update the Javadoc:
/** - * This implementation has been moved to - * {@link gov.nist.secauto.metaschema.core.model.constraint.ExternalConstraintsModulePostProcessor}, - * which should be used instead. + * @deprecated This implementation has been moved to + * {@link gov.nist.secauto.metaschema.core.model.constraint.ExternalConstraintsModulePostProcessor}, + * which should be used instead. * * @param additionalConstraintSets * constraints to configure */📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements./** * @deprecated This implementation has been moved to * {@link gov.nist.secauto.metaschema.core.model.constraint.ExternalConstraintsModulePostProcessor}, * which should be used instead. * * @param additionalConstraintSets * constraints to configure */core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/datatype/AbstractDataTypeProvider.java (1)
34-39:
⚠️ Potential issuePotential thread-safety issue when returning the internal list
While using
readLockallows concurrent reads, returning the internallibrarylist, even as an unmodifiable list, can expose the internal state to concurrent modifications after the lock is released. This may lead to inconsistent views orConcurrentModificationExceptionif the list is modified by another thread.Consider returning a shallow copy of the list to ensure thread safety:
try { readLock.lock(); - return CollectionUtil.unmodifiableList(library); + return CollectionUtil.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(library)); } finally { readLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = libraryLock.readLock(); try { readLock.lock(); return CollectionUtil.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(library)); } finally { readLock.unlock();databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/io/json/DefaultJsonSerializer.java (1)
27-27: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
⚠️ Potential issuePotential thread-safety issue with
Lazy<JsonFactory> factory.By default,
Lazy.lazy()is not thread-safe. If instances ofDefaultJsonSerializerare accessed by multiple threads, this could lead to race conditions during the initialization offactory. Consider usingLazy.lazyThreadSafe(this::newFactoryInstance)to ensure thread-safe lazy initialization.Apply this diff to use thread-safe lazy initialization:
-private Lazy<JsonFactory> factory; +private Lazy<JsonFactory> factory; ... -protected final void resetFactory() { - this.factory = Lazy.lazy(this::newFactoryInstance); +protected final void resetFactory() { + this.factory = Lazy.lazyThreadSafe(this::newFactoryInstance); }Alternatively, if thread safety is not a concern, document that
DefaultJsonSerializeris not thread-safe.Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/SimpleModuleLoaderStrategy.java (3)
31-31: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Remove unnecessary locks
Since you're using
ConcurrentHashMap, which handles thread-safe operations internally, and you've refactored the methods to usecomputeIfAbsent, the explicit locksmodulesLockanddefinitionsLockare no longer necessary.You can remove the lock declarations:
private final Map<Class<?>, IBoundModule> modulesByClass = new ConcurrentHashMap<>(); -private final Lock modulesLock = new ReentrantLock(); private final Map<Class<?>, IBoundDefinitionModelComplex> definitionsByClass = new ConcurrentHashMap<>(); -private final Lock definitionsLock = new ReentrantLock();Also applies to: 34-34
64-74: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor
getBoundDefinitionForClassusingcomputeIfAbsentSimilarly, you can refactor
getBoundDefinitionForClassto usecomputeIfAbsent, removing the explicit lock and simplifying the code. Note that ifnewBoundDefinition(clazz)returnsnull, the map will not store a mapping for this key, which aligns with your current logic.Refactored
getBoundDefinitionForClassmethod:public IBoundDefinitionModelComplex getBoundDefinitionForClass(@NonNull Class<? extends IBoundObject> clazz) { - IBoundDefinitionModelComplex retval; - try { - definitionsLock.lock(); - retval = definitionsByClass.get(clazz); - if (retval == null) { - retval = newBoundDefinition(clazz); - if (retval != null) { - definitionsByClass.put(clazz, retval); - } - } - } finally { - definitionsLock.unlock(); - } - return retval; + return definitionsByClass.computeIfAbsent( + clazz, + c -> newBoundDefinition(c)); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.return definitionsByClass.computeIfAbsent( clazz, c -> newBoundDefinition(c));
48-56: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify concurrent map access using
computeIfAbsentYou can eliminate the need for explicit locking by leveraging the
computeIfAbsentmethod provided byConcurrentHashMap. This method atomically computes and stores the value if it's absent, simplifying your code and enhancing readability.Here’s how you can refactor the
loadModulemethod:public IBoundModule loadModule(@NonNull Class<? extends IBoundModule> clazz) { - IBoundModule retval; - try { - modulesLock.lock(); - retval = modulesByClass.get(clazz); - if (retval == null) { - retval = AbstractBoundModule.createInstance(clazz, getBindingContext()); - modulesByClass.put(clazz, retval); - } - } finally { - modulesLock.unlock(); - } - return ObjectUtils.notNull(retval); + return modulesByClass.computeIfAbsent( + clazz, + c -> ObjectUtils.notNull(AbstractBoundModule.createInstance(c, getBindingContext()))); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.return modulesByClass.computeIfAbsent( clazz, c -> ObjectUtils.notNull(AbstractBoundModule.createInstance(c, getBindingContext())));core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/metapath/function/library/FnStringLength.java (2)
70-70:
⚠️ Potential issueTypo in comment: 'if' should be 'is'
On line 70, there is a typo in the comment. The word 'if' should be 'is':
- // the focus should always be non-null, since the function if focus-dependent + // the focus should always be non-null, since the function is focus-dependent📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.// the focus should always be non-null, since the function is focus-dependent
85-85:
⚠️ Potential issuePotential exception on empty sequence due to
getFirstItem(true)In the
executeOneArgmethod, usinggetFirstItem(true)will throw an exception if the argument sequence is empty. According to the XPath 3.1 specification, if the argument is an empty sequence, the function should return zero without throwing an exception. To handle this case correctly, consider changinggetFirstItem(true)togetFirstItem(false):- IStringItem arg = FunctionUtils.asTypeOrNull(arguments.get(0).getFirstItem(true)); + IStringItem arg = FunctionUtils.asTypeOrNull(arguments.get(0).getFirstItem(false));📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.IStringItem arg = FunctionUtils.asTypeOrNull(arguments.get(0).getFirstItem(false));core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/model/constraint/ValueConstraintSet.java (10)
60-65:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'getAllowedValuesConstraints' Method
Similar to the previous method,
readLock.lock()should be called before thetryblock.Apply this diff:
@Override public List<IAllowedValuesConstraint> getAllowedValuesConstraints() { Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); + readLock.lock(); try { - readLock.lock(); return allowedValuesConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return allowedValuesConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock();
104-110:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'addConstraint' for AllowedValuesConstraints
writeLock.lock()should be called before thetryblock to prevent potential issues.Suggested correction:
@Override public final void addConstraint(@NonNull IAllowedValuesConstraint constraint) { Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); + writeLock.lock(); try { - writeLock.lock(); constraints.add(constraint); allowedValuesConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { constraints.add(constraint); allowedValuesConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock();
82-87:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'getIndexHasKeyConstraints' Method
Ensure
readLock.lock()is called before entering thetryblock.Correct it with this diff:
@Override public List<IIndexHasKeyConstraint> getIndexHasKeyConstraints() { Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); + readLock.lock(); try { - readLock.lock(); return indexHasKeyConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return indexHasKeyConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }
140-146:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'addConstraint' for ExpectConstraints
writeLock.lock()should be called before thetryblock for consistency and correctness.Correct it with this diff:
@Override public final void addConstraint(@NonNull IExpectConstraint constraint) { Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); + writeLock.lock(); try { - writeLock.lock(); constraints.add(constraint); expectConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { constraints.add(constraint); expectConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock();
116-122:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'addConstraint' for MatchesConstraints
Adjust the position of
writeLock.lock()to before thetryblock.Apply this diff:
@Override public final void addConstraint(@NonNull IMatchesConstraint constraint) { Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); + writeLock.lock(); try { - writeLock.lock(); constraints.add(constraint); matchesConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { constraints.add(constraint); matchesConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock();
49-54:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'getConstraints' Method
The call to
readLock.lock()should be made before entering thetryblock to ensure the lock is acquired even if an exception is thrown during the locking process. Placing thelock()call inside thetryblock can lead to unlocking an unacquired lock iflock()throws an exception.Apply this diff to correct the lock acquisition order:
@Override public List<IConstraint> getConstraints() { Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); + readLock.lock(); try { - readLock.lock(); return constraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return constraints; } finally { readLock.unlock();
93-98:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'getExpectConstraints' Method
Move
readLock.lock()before thetryblock.Fix it as follows:
@Override public List<IExpectConstraint> getExpectConstraints() { Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); + readLock.lock(); try { - readLock.lock(); return expectConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return expectConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }
128-134:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'addConstraint' for IndexHasKeyConstraints
Ensure proper locking by moving
writeLock.lock()outside thetryblock.Here's the fix:
@Override public final void addConstraint(@NonNull IIndexHasKeyConstraint constraint) { Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); + writeLock.lock(); try { - writeLock.lock(); constraints.add(constraint); indexHasKeyConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { constraints.add(constraint); indexHasKeyConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock();
71-76:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect Lock Acquisition Order in 'getMatchesConstraints' Method
The
readLock.lock()call should precede thetryblock.Here's the suggested fix:
@Override public List<IMatchesConstraint> getMatchesConstraints() { Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); + readLock.lock(); try { - readLock.lock(); return matchesConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); } }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return matchesConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }
49-146: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider Returning Unmodifiable Views of Internal Collections
Returning mutable internal collections like
constraintscan expose the internal state to external modification, potentially leading to thread safety issues. Consider returning unmodifiable views to protect the integrity of the internal data.For example, modify the getters to return unmodifiable lists:
import java.util.Collections; +import java.util.List; @Override public List<IConstraint> getConstraints() { Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return Collections.unmodifiableList(constraints); } finally { readLock.unlock(); } }Apply similar changes to other getter methods.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/metapath/function/FunctionLibrary.java (2)
85-90:
⚠️ Potential issuePotential concurrency issue: Stream may access shared data after lock release
In the
streammethod, the read lock is acquired, aStreamis created, and then the lock is released:Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); try { readLock.lock(); return ObjectUtils.notNull( libraryByQName.values().stream().flatMap(NamedFunctionSet::getFunctionsAsStream)); } finally { readLock.unlock(); }The returned
Streammight accesslibraryByQNameafter the lock has been released, leading to potentialConcurrentModificationExceptionif other threads modify the collection concurrently.Consider collecting the results into an immutable collection within the locked section to ensure thread safety:
Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { + List<IFunction> functions = libraryByQName.values().stream() + .flatMap(NamedFunctionSet::getFunctionsAsStream) + .collect(Collectors.toUnmodifiableList()); + return functions.stream(); - return ObjectUtils.notNull( - libraryByQName.values().stream().flatMap(NamedFunctionSet::getFunctionsAsStream)); } finally { readLock.unlock(); }This modification ensures that the
Streamoperates on a snapshot of the data, preventing concurrent modifications from affecting iteration.
48-58: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Adjust the locking pattern to prevent potential exceptions
Currently, the lock is acquired inside the
tryblock:Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); try { writeLock.lock(); // Operations } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }If an exception occurs before the lock is acquired, the
unlock()method could be called without a correspondinglock(), potentially throwing anIllegalMonitorStateException.Acquire the lock before the
tryblock to ensure thatunlock()is only called if the lock was successfully acquired:Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); + writeLock.lock(); try { - writeLock.lock(); // Operations } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }Apply this pattern consistently in all methods where locks are used (
registerFunctionByQName,registerFunctionByName,getFunction, etc.) to enhance reliability.Also applies to: 68-79, 97-105, 113-121
databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/io/json/DefaultJsonDeserializer.java (3)
30-30:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure thread safety with
Lazy<JsonFactory>Using
Lazy<JsonFactory>for lazy initialization of thefactoryvariable can introduce thread-safety concerns. Verify that theLazyimplementation from Lazy4j is thread-safe and suitable for use in multi-threaded environments, asDefaultJsonDeserializermay be accessed concurrently.
45-47:
⚠️ Potential issueReview thread safety of the
resetFactory()methodThe
resetFactory()method reinitializes thefactoryvariable. IfconfigurationChangedcan be called by multiple threads, ensure that this method is thread-safe to prevent race conditions or inconsistent states.
50-52:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure thread safety when resetting factory on configuration changes
The
configurationChangedmethod invokesresetFactory(). If configurations can change at runtime in a multi-threaded context, confirm that resetting thefactorydoes not introduce concurrency issues.metaschema-cli/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/cli/commands/ConvertContentUsingModuleCommand.java (1)
97-110:
⚠️ Potential issueAvoid including user input in exception messages to prevent information disclosure
Including user-provided input such as
ex.getInput()in exception messages can inadvertently leak sensitive information or provide attackers with hints about the system's internals. Consider sanitizing the input or providing a more generic error message to enhance security.Apply this diff to prevent potential information disclosure:
-throw new IOException(String.format("Cannot load module as '%s' is not a valid file or URL.", ex.getInput()), ex); +throw new IOException("Cannot load module: Invalid file or URL.", ex);📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.protected IBindingContext getBindingContext() throws IOException, MetaschemaException { URI cwd = ObjectUtils.notNull(Paths.get("").toAbsolutePath().toUri()); IModule module; try { module = MetaschemaCommands.handleModule(getCommandLine(), cwd, CollectionUtil.emptySet()); } catch (URISyntaxException ex) { throw new IOException("Cannot load module: Invalid file or URL.", ex); } IBindingContext retval = new DefaultBindingContext(); retval.registerModule(module, getTempDir()); return retval; }🧰 Tools
🪛 ast-grep
[warning] 103-104: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (String.format("Cannot load module as '%s' is not a valid file or URL.", ex.getInput()),
ex)
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 103-104: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (String.format("Cannot load module as '%s' is not a valid file or URL.", ex.getInput()),
ex)
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfigurationcore/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/model/constraint/ExternalConstraintsModulePostProcessor.java (4)
99-99:
⚠️ Potential issueReplace 'assert' statement with proper null check for 'items'
Assertions may be disabled at runtime, which could lead to unexpected behavior if
itemsis null. Replaceassert items != null;with an explicit null check to ensureitemsis not null.Apply this diff:
- assert items != null; + if (items == null) { + throw new IllegalStateException("Metapath expression evaluation returned a null sequence."); + }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.if (items == null) { throw new IllegalStateException("Metapath expression evaluation returned a null sequence."); }
83-83:
⚠️ Potential issueReplace 'assert' statement with proper null check for 'set'
Using
assertstatements for null checks can be unreliable in production code since assertions can be disabled at runtime. Replaceassert set != null;with an explicit null check to ensuresetis not null during execution.Apply this diff:
- assert set != null; + if (set == null) { + throw new IllegalArgumentException("Constraint set cannot be null"); + }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.if (set == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("Constraint set cannot be null"); }
54-61:
⚠️ Potential issueFilter out null elements from 'additionalConstraintSets'
The constructor does not check for null elements within
additionalConstraintSetsor the imported constraint sets. To prevent potentialNullPointerExceptions, filter out null elements when initializingregisteredConstraintSets.Apply this diff to filter out null elements:
this.registeredConstraintSets = ObjectUtils.notNull(additionalConstraintSets.stream() + .filter(Objects::nonNull) .flatMap(set -> Stream.concat( Stream.of(set), + set.getImportedConstraintSets().stream().filter(Objects::nonNull))) - set.getImportedConstraintSets().stream())) .distinct() .collect(Collectors.toUnmodifiableList()));📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.public ExternalConstraintsModulePostProcessor(@NonNull Collection<IConstraintSet> additionalConstraintSets) { this.registeredConstraintSets = ObjectUtils.notNull(additionalConstraintSets.stream() .filter(Objects::nonNull) .flatMap(set -> Stream.concat( Stream.of(set), set.getImportedConstraintSets().stream().filter(Objects::nonNull))) .distinct() .collect(Collectors.toUnmodifiableList())); }
97-103:
⚠️ Potential issueHandle exceptions when compiling 'targetExpression'
Compiling the
targetExpressionmay throw an exception if the expression is invalid. WrapMetapathExpression.compilein a try-catch block to handle any potential exceptions and prevent the application from crashing.Apply this diff:
- MetapathExpression metapath = MetapathExpression.compile(targetExpression, dynamicContext.getStaticContext()); + MetapathExpression metapath; + try { + metapath = MetapathExpression.compile(targetExpression, dynamicContext.getStaticContext()); + } catch (MetapathException e) { + LOGGER.atError().withThrowable(e).log("Failed to compile target expression '{}'.", targetExpression); + continue; + }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.MetapathExpression metapath; try { metapath = MetapathExpression.compile(targetExpression, dynamicContext.getStaticContext()); } catch (MetapathException e) { LOGGER.atError().withThrowable(e).log("Failed to compile target expression '{}'.", targetExpression); continue; } ISequence<?> items = metapath.evaluateAs(moduleItem, ResultType.SEQUENCE, dynamicContext); assert items != null; // first build a map to ensure the constraint is only applied once to each // underlying definition Map<IDefinition, IDefinitionNodeItem<?, ?>> definitions = items.stream()databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/io/xml/DefaultXmlDeserializer.java (2)
74-79:
⚠️ Potential issueCorrect the method comment to reflect XML factory creation
The method
newFactoryInstance()at lines 74-79 has a comment that incorrectly states "Get a JSON factory instance." Since this method creates anXMLInputFactory2instance for XML parsing, please update the comment to accurately describe its purpose.Apply this diff to correct the comment:
- * Get a JSON factory instance. + * Get an XML input factory instance.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.* Get an XML input factory instance. * <p> * This method can be used by sub-classes to create a customized factory * instance. * * @return the factory
84-84:
⚠️ Potential issueReplace
assertwith explicit runtime check for type safetyAt line 84, using an
assertstatement to check ifretvalis an instance ofWstxInputFactoryis not reliable, as assertions can be disabled at runtime. This might allow an incompatible factory instance to be used without detection. Consider replacing theassertwith an explicit type check and throw an exception if the check fails to ensure type safety.Apply this diff to replace the
assertstatement:- assert retval instanceof WstxInputFactory; + if (!(retval instanceof WstxInputFactory)) { + throw new IllegalStateException("Expected XMLInputFactory to be an instance of WstxInputFactory."); + }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.if (!(retval instanceof WstxInputFactory)) { throw new IllegalStateException("Expected XMLInputFactory to be an instance of WstxInputFactory."); }databind/src/test/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/codegen/AbstractMetaschemaTest.java (1)
35-35: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider Using
@TempDirfor Temporary DirectoryThe
generationDiris currently set to a fixed path"target/generated-test-sources/metaschema". This could lead to issues when running tests in parallel or leave residual files after tests complete. Consider using JUnit's@TempDirannotation to create a temporary directory for test outputs, ensuring isolation and automatic cleanup.Apply this diff to adjust the code:
- // @TempDir - // Path generationDir; @NonNull - Path generationDir = ObjectUtils.notNull(Paths.get("target/generated-test-sources/metaschema")); + @TempDir + Path generationDir;Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
metaschema-cli/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/cli/commands/metapath/EvaluateMetapathCommand.java (2)
210-220: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify nested try-with-resources statements
The nested try-with-resources statements can be refactored to improve code readability. Multiple resources can be declared in a single try-with-resources statement.
Consider combining the resources into a single statement:
-try (Writer stringWriter = new StringWriter()) { - try (PrintWriter writer = new PrintWriter(stringWriter)) { - try (IItemWriter itemWriter = new DefaultItemWriter(writer)) { - itemWriter.writeSequence(sequence); - } - } - - // Print the result - if (LOGGER.isInfoEnabled()) { - LOGGER.info(stringWriter.toString()); - } -} +try (Writer stringWriter = new StringWriter(); + PrintWriter writer = new PrintWriter(stringWriter); + IItemWriter itemWriter = new DefaultItemWriter(writer)) { + itemWriter.writeSequence(sequence); + // Print the result + if (LOGGER.isInfoEnabled()) { + LOGGER.info(stringWriter.toString()); + } +}This refactoring simplifies the code while maintaining the same functionality.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.try (Writer stringWriter = new StringWriter(); PrintWriter writer = new PrintWriter(stringWriter); IItemWriter itemWriter = new DefaultItemWriter(writer)) { itemWriter.writeSequence(sequence); // Print the result if (LOGGER.isInfoEnabled()) { LOGGER.info(stringWriter.toString()); } }
188-189:
⚠️ Potential issueIncorrect option name in error message
The error message references
CONTENT_OPTION.getArgName()instead ofMETASCHEMA_OPTION.getArgName(). Since the error is about requiring the Metaschema module, the option name should referenceMETASCHEMA_OPTION.Apply this diff to correct the option name:
return ExitCode.INVALID_ARGUMENTS.exitMessage( - String.format("Must use '%s' to specify the Metaschema module.", CONTENT_OPTION.getArgName())); + String.format("Must use '%s' to specify the Metaschema module.", METASCHEMA_OPTION.getArgName()));📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.// content provided, but no module; require module return ExitCode.INVALID_ARGUMENTS.exitMessage( String.format("Must use '%s' to specify the Metaschema module.", METASCHEMA_OPTION.getArgName()));🧰 Tools
🪛 ast-grep
[warning] 188-189: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (
String.format("Must use '%s' to specify the Metaschema module.", CONTENT_OPTION.getArgName()))
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 188-189: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (
String.format("Must use '%s' to specify the Metaschema module.", CONTENT_OPTION.getArgName()))
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfigurationmetaschema-maven-plugin/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/maven/plugin/AbstractMetaschemaMojo.java (1)
218-218:
⚠️ Potential issueUse
Charset.defaultCharset().name()instead ofdisplayName()for consistent encoding namesIn the
getEncoding()method,Charset.defaultCharset().displayName()is used to obtain the system's default encoding. ThedisplayName()method returns a human-readable name, which may vary based on locale and is not guaranteed to be consistent across different environments. For consistent and programmatically reliable encoding names, it's better to useCharset.defaultCharset().name(), which returns the canonical name of the charset.Apply this diff to ensure consistent encoding names:
- encoding = Charset.defaultCharset().displayName(); + encoding = Charset.defaultCharset().name();📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.encoding = Charset.defaultCharset().name();databind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/codegen/typeinfo/DefaultTypeResolver.java (3)
38-39: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using
ReadWriteLockfor better concurrencyYou have introduced
ReentrantLockinstances (classNameLockandpropertyNameLock) to synchronize access to shared resources. If read operations occur more frequently than writes, consider usingReadWriteLockto allow multiple threads to read concurrently while still synchronizing write operations. This can improve concurrency and performance in multithreaded environments.Also applies to: 49-49, 58-58
196-203:
⚠️ Potential issueFix the infinite loop in class name generation logic
The
indexvariable is not incremented within thewhileloop in thegetClassNamemethod, which can lead to an infinite loop when a class name clash occurs. Incrementindexinside the loop to properly generate unique class names.Apply this diff to fix the issue:
int index = 1; try { classNameLock.lock(); while (isClassNameClash(packageName, className)) { - className = classNameBase + Integer.toString(index); + className = classNameBase + Integer.toString(index++); } addClassName(packageName, className); } finally { classNameLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.int index = 1; try { classNameLock.lock(); while (isClassNameClash(packageName, className)) { className = classNameBase + Integer.toString(index++); } addClassName(packageName, className); } finally { classNameLock.unlock();
214-215: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Remove redundant synchronization with
Collections.synchronizedSetIn the
getClassNamesFormethod, you wrapLinkedHashSetwithCollections.synchronizedSet. Since you're already usingclassNameLockto control access to this set, the additional synchronization is unnecessary and may introduce overhead. Replace it with a plainLinkedHashSet.Apply this diff:
- pkg -> Collections.synchronizedSet(new LinkedHashSet<>()))); + pkg -> new LinkedHashSet<>()));📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.packageOrTypeName, pkg -> new LinkedHashSet<>()));🧰 Tools
🪛 ast-grep
[warning] 214-214: Detected a cookie where the
Secureflag is either missing or disabled. TheSecurecookie flag instructs the browser to forbid sending the cookie over an insecure HTTP request. Set theSecureflag totrueso the cookie will only be sent over HTTPS.
Context: (new LinkedHashSet<>())
Note: [CWE-614]: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfiguration
[warning] 214-214: Detected a cookie where the
HttpOnlyflag is either missing or disabled. TheHttpOnlycookie flag instructs the browser to forbid client-side JavaScript to read the cookie. If JavaScript interaction is required, you can ignore this finding. However, set theHttpOnlyflag to true` in all other cases.
Context: (new LinkedHashSet<>())
Note: [CWE-1004]: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag [OWASP A05:2021]: Security Misconfiguration [REFERENCES]
- https://owasp.org/Top10/A05_2021-Security_Misconfigurationdatabind/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/databind/io/json/MetaschemaJsonWriter.java (1)
38-38: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring to reduce class coupling instead of suppressing PMD warning
Suppressing the
PMD.CouplingBetweenObjectswarning at the class level indicates that this class has a high level of coupling with other classes, which can make the code harder to maintain and understand. It might be beneficial to refactor the class to reduce coupling, possibly by splitting it into smaller, more focused classes or reducing unnecessary dependencies.databind-metaschema/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/modules/sarif/SarifValidationHandler.java (3)
58-58: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider reducing class coupling instead of suppressing PMD warning.
The suppression of the
PMD.CouplingBetweenObjectswarning indicates thatSarifValidationHandlerhas high coupling with other classes. High coupling can make the codebase harder to maintain and test. Consider refactoring the class to reduce coupling and improve modularity, rather than suppressing the warning.
428-428: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring to avoid object instantiation within loops.
Creating a
Resultobject inside a loop may impact performance due to frequent object creation. If possible, refactor the code to reuse objects or instantiate them outside the loop.
144-145: 💡 Codebase verification
'getSource()' Method Is Used Externally
The
getSource()method is referenced in multiple locations outside theSarifValidationHandlerclass, including:
BindingConstraintLoader.javaConstraintSupport.javaXmlConstraintLoader.javaConstraintXmlSupport.javaICardinalityConstraint.javaIIndexHasKeyConstraint.javaIAllowedValuesConstraint.javaAbstractConstraintBuilder.javaXmlConstraintLoader.javaInternalModelSource.javaExternalSource.javaAbstractConstraint.javaDefaultLet.javaChanging the visibility of
getSource()to private may affect these external references. Please review and refactor accordingly to ensure encapsulation without breaking dependencies.🔗 Analysis chain
Ensure 'getSource()' method is not needed outside the class.
Changing the visibility of
getSource()to private enhances encapsulation. Please verify that there are no external references to this method that might be affected by this change.Run the following script to search for external references to
getSource():🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find usages of 'getSource()' outside 'SarifValidationHandler' class. # Execute: Search for 'getSource(' in all Java files excluding 'SarifValidationHandler.java'. Expect: No matches. rg --type java 'getSource\(' --glob '!**/SarifValidationHandler.java' -A 2Length of output: 8619
core/src/main/java/gov/nist/secauto/metaschema/core/model/constraint/AssemblyConstraintSet.java (7)
53-58:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Proper Lock Ordering in Read Operations
In the
getHasCardinalityConstraintsmethod, adjust the lock acquisition to occur before thetryblock for consistent and safe lock handling.Apply this diff to adjust the lock ordering:
- try { - readLock.lock(); + readLock.lock(); + try { return cardinalityConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return cardinalityConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }
88-94:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Proper Lock Ordering in Write Operations
In the
addConstraintmethod forICardinalityConstraint, adjust the placement ofwriteLock.lock()to occur before thetryblock.Apply this diff to adjust the lock ordering:
- try { - writeLock.lock(); + writeLock.lock(); + try { getConstraints().add(constraint); cardinalityConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { getConstraints().add(constraint); cardinalityConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }
31-36:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Proper Lock Ordering in Read Operations
In the
getIndexConstraintsmethod, the lock acquisition should occur before thetryblock to guarantee that the lock is held during the entire operation. Currently,readLock.lock()is inside thetryblock, which may lead to the lock not being released properly if an exception is thrown before the lock is acquired.Apply this diff to adjust the lock ordering:
- try { - readLock.lock(); + readLock.lock(); + try { return indexConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return indexConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }
42-47:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Proper Lock Ordering in Read Operations
Similarly, in the
getUniqueConstraintsmethod, the lock should be acquired before entering thetryblock to ensure correct lock management.Apply this diff to adjust the lock ordering:
- try { - readLock.lock(); + readLock.lock(); + try { return uniqueConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock readLock = instanceLock.readLock(); readLock.lock(); try { return uniqueConstraints; } finally { readLock.unlock(); }
64-70:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Proper Lock Ordering in Write Operations
In the
addConstraintmethod forIIndexConstraint, the write lock should be acquired before thetryblock to prevent any potential issues with lock release.Apply this diff to adjust the lock ordering:
- try { - writeLock.lock(); + writeLock.lock(); + try { getConstraints().add(constraint); indexConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { getConstraints().add(constraint); indexConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }
76-82:
⚠️ Potential issueEnsure Proper Lock Ordering in Write Operations
For the
addConstraintmethod handlingIUniqueConstraint, ensure the write lock is acquired before entering thetryblock.Apply this diff to adjust the lock ordering:
- try { - writeLock.lock(); + writeLock.lock(); + try { getConstraints().add(constraint); uniqueConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.Lock writeLock = instanceLock.writeLock(); writeLock.lock(); try { getConstraints().add(constraint); uniqueConstraints.add(constraint); } finally { writeLock.unlock(); }
10-10: 💡 Codebase verification
⚠️ Potential issueImport and Declare
ReadWriteLockThe
instanceLockvariable is not declared inAssemblyConstraintSet.java. Please add the following imports and declaration to prevent compilation errors:+import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock; +import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock; public class AssemblyConstraintSet extends ValueConstraintSet implements IModelConstrained { + private final ReadWriteLock instanceLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();🔗 Analysis chain
Import Missing
ReadWriteLockThe
instanceLockvariable used for locking is not declared in this class. Ensure thatReadWriteLockis properly declared and initialized to prevent compilation errors.Run the following script to check for the declaration of
instanceLock:If
instanceLockis not declared in this class or a superclass, add the following import and declaration:+import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock; +import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock; public class AssemblyConstraintSet extends ValueConstraintSet implements IModelConstrained { + private final ReadWriteLock instanceLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `instanceLock` is declared and initialized. # Test: Search for `instanceLock` declaration. # Expect: A declaration of `instanceLock` as a `ReadWriteLock` instance. rg -A 2 'private.*ReadWriteLock.*instanceLock'Length of output: 403
… and Spotbugs errors.
… not be removed anytime soon to continue to provide support. Added a bunch of Javadocs.
david-waltermire
force-pushed
the
feature/add-missing-javadocs-20241020
branch
from
7b0c24f to
fc4f2ec
Compare
* More refactoring, Javadoc creation, and cleanup of PMD, Java compile, and Spotbugs errors. * Removed marking for removal for NcName deprecations, since these will not be removed anytime soon to continue to provide support.
1 participant
Committer Notes
More refactoring, Javadoc creation, and cleanup of PMD, Java compile, and Spotbugs errors.
All Submissions:
By submitting a pull request, you are agreeing to provide this contribution under the CC0 1.0 Universal public domain dedication.
Changes to Core Features: