Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal.org security advisory coverage applications
Component:
module
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
2 Sep 2022 at 15:28 UTC
Updated:
17 Oct 2022 at 12:45 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent
Comments
Comment #2
podarokI've checked code.
Looks good for me.
Comment #3
avpadernoThank you for applying! Reviewers will review the project files, describing what needs to be changed.
Please read Review process for security advisory coverage: What to expect for more details and Security advisory coverage application checklist to understand what reviewers look for. Tips for ensuring a smooth review gives some hints for a smother review.
To reviewers: Please read How to review security advisory coverage applications, What to cover in an application review, and Security advisory coverage application workflow.
Since the project is being used for this application, for the time this application is open, only the user who created the application can commit code.
(I will make a review once I return back to home, since I have seen something that should be fixed.)
Comment #4
avpadernoauthorisn't a recognized key, in .info.yml files.core_version_requirementrequires Drupal 8.7.7, while semantic versioning requires Drupal 8.8.3, as previous Drupal versions don't handle them.coreshould not be used with recent Drupal releases.Since Drupal 8 isn't supported anymore, I would rather limit the required Drupal versions to Drupal 9, except in the case the module is already used in sites running on Drupal 8. In this case, the minimum Drupal 8 version should still be adjusted.
The property type can only be declared in PHP 8. Drupal 9 still requires PHP 7.3.
FormBasehas already methods to retrieve configuration objects. That property and the code handling it aren't necessary.There are already
FormBase::$requestStackandFormBase::getRequest().FormBaseusesMessengerTrait, which providesMessengerTrait::$messengerandMessengerTrait::messenger().The code is duplicating properties already provided from the parent class.
The first argument passed to
MessengerInterface::addError(),MessengerInterface::addMessage(),MessengerInterface::addStatus(), andMessengerInterface::addWarning()must be a translatable string that uses placeholders.The placeholder for the URL is correct, but it must be used between double quotes. Using it without double quotes is considered a security issue.
The
$messageparameter passed to theLoggerInterfacemethods must be a literal string that uses placeholders. It's not a translatable string returned fromt()or$this->t(), or a string concatenation.The README.txt file doesn't follow the README template.
Comment #5
avpadernoComment #6
podarok@apaderno
Thanks for the review
Just a couple of questions
- how is this related to security?
- wouldn't be good to have this as a post-approval stage?
The reason I'm asking is - I saw these in my review but decided to send them as a suggestion, not blocking security opt-in, which is a part of the current issue queue.
Comment #7
avpadernoThese applications don't verify only the project is using secure code, but also that the code follows the Drupal coding standards and correctly uses the Drupal API. That is stated in Apply for permission to opt into security advisory coverage / Purpose.
Comment #8
avpadernoWhat these applications don't do is fixing all the bugs in the code. That's something that need to be reported in the project issue queue.
Comment #9
bohdan vasyliuk commentedThank you for your time and feedback.
The code was updated according to your comments. Please review and let me know your feedback.
Comment #10
avpadernoThe messages passed to the messenger's methods must be translatable.
Comment #11
avpadernoThank you for your contribution! I am going to update your account.
These are some recommended readings to help with excellent maintainership:
You can find more contributors chatting on the Slack #contribute channel. So, come hang out and stay involved.
Thank you, also, for your patience with the review process.
Anyone is welcome to participate in the review process. Please consider reviewing other projects that are pending review. I encourage you to learn more about that process and join the group of reviewers.
I thank all the reviewers too.
Comment #12
podarokThank you
Comment #13
avpadernoComment #15
avpaderno