✨ feature: Adds the basic terraform needed, example, tests and ci #1
Conversation
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
|
WalkthroughThis update introduces a comprehensive suite of configurations and workflows that enhance dependency management, security, and cloud infrastructure deployment within the repository. Key changes include the integration of GitHub Actions for automated linting, testing, and security checks, along with Terraform configurations for AWS resources like S3 and CloudFront. Overall, these adjustments aim to streamline development processes and improve security practices while maintaining a focus on modular and reusable infrastructure code. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Dev
participant GitHub
participant CI/CD
participant Terraform
participant AWS
Dev->>GitHub: Push code
GitHub->>CI/CD: Trigger workflows
CI/CD->>Terraform: Initialize and apply infrastructure
Terraform->>AWS: Create resources (S3, CloudFront)
CI/CD->>GitHub: Run tests and linting
CI/CD->>GitHub: Report results and vulnerabilities
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 17
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
test/go.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum
Files selected for processing (24)
- .github/dependabot.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/codeql.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/dependency-review.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/lint.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
- .pre-commit-config.yaml (4 hunks)
- aws-cloudfront.tf (1 hunks)
- aws-s3.tf (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/.tflint.hcl (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/ctx.tf (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/infracost-usage.yml (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/main.tf (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/outputs.tf (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/variables.tf (1 hunks)
- infracost.yml (1 hunks)
- main.tf (1 hunks)
- outputs.tf (1 hunks)
- test/.golangci.yml (1 hunks)
- test/examples_simple_test.go (1 hunks)
- test/go.mod (1 hunks)
- test/osv-scanner.toml (1 hunks)
- trivy.yaml (1 hunks)
- variables.tf (1 hunks)
Additional context used
checkov
main.tf
[MEDIUM] 1-6: Ensure Terraform module sources use a commit hash
(CKV_TF_1)
examples/simple/ctx.tf
[MEDIUM] 1-8: Ensure Terraform module sources use a commit hash
(CKV_TF_1)
aws-s3.tf
[MEDIUM] 3-19: Ensure Terraform module sources use a commit hash
(CKV_TF_1)
aws-cloudfront.tf
[MEDIUM] 3-39: Ensure CloudFront distribution has Access Logging enabled
(CKV_AWS_86)
[MEDIUM] 3-39: Ensure CloudFront distributions should have origin failover configured
(CKV_AWS_310)
[MEDIUM] 3-39: Verify CloudFront Distribution Viewer Certificate is using TLS v1.2
(CKV_AWS_174)
[MEDIUM] 3-39: CloudFront Distribution should have WAF enabled
(CKV_AWS_68)
[MEDIUM] 3-39: Ensure AWS CloudFront distribution uses custom SSL certificate
(CKV2_AWS_42)
[MEDIUM] 3-39: Ensure AWS CloudFront attached WAFv2 WebACL is configured with AMR for Log4j Vulnerability
(CKV2_AWS_47)
Additional comments not posted (26)
examples/simple/variables.tf (1)
1-4: LGTM!The variable definition for
namespaceis clear and follows best practices.test/osv-scanner.toml (1)
1-3: LGTM!The configuration for ignoring the vulnerability
GO-2022-0646is well-documented with a clear reason.trivy.yaml (1)
5-6: LGTM!The use of wildcard patterns in the
skip-dirssection improves flexibility and reduces the need for future updates.infracost.yml (1)
3-5: LGTM!The simplification to a single example improves clarity and usability for users.
examples/simple/.tflint.hcl (1)
1-10: LGTM! Configuration for TFLint plugins is appropriate.The configuration enables the Terraform and AWS plugins, which is standard for linting Terraform code.
examples/simple/main.tf (1)
1-18: LGTM! Terraform configuration is well-structured.The configuration specifies required providers and versions, which is a good practice. The use of a relative module source is typical for local development.
outputs.tf (1)
1-19: LGTM! Outputs are well-defined.The outputs provide essential information about the created S3 and CloudFront resources, which is useful for integration and debugging.
examples/simple/outputs.tf (1)
1-19: LGTM! Outputs are consistent and useful.The outputs are consistent with the module's expected outputs, providing necessary information for further use.
.github/workflows/dependency-review.yml (1)
1-27: LGTM! Dependency review workflow is well-configured.The workflow correctly sets up a dependency review action to scan for vulnerable packages. Using specific commit hashes for actions is a good practice for stability.
.github/workflows/test.yml (1)
1-35: LGTM! Test workflow is well-configured.The workflow sets up Terratest for testing and uses specific commit hashes for actions, ensuring stability and security.
.github/dependabot.yml (1)
1-43: LGTM! Dependabot configuration is comprehensive.The configuration covers multiple ecosystems with a weekly update schedule and uses prefixes for commit messages, enhancing clarity.
aws-s3.tf (1)
21-41: LGTM! Bucket policy is correctly configured.The bucket policy allows CloudFront access to the S3 bucket, which is correctly implemented.
.pre-commit-config.yaml (1)
Line range hint
3-61: Pre-commit hook updates approved. Verify compatibility.The updates to the pre-commit hooks are approved. Ensure that the new versions are compatible with your existing codebase and configurations.
Run the following script to verify compatibility:
.github/workflows/codeql.yml (1)
1-82: CodeQL workflow configuration approved.The CodeQL workflow is well-configured for analyzing Go code. It includes important steps for security and environment setup.
Consider adding more languages to the
languagematrix if your repository supports them, to enhance security coverage..github/workflows/scorecard.yml (1)
1-78: Scorecard workflow configuration approved.The Scorecard workflow is well-configured for supply-chain security analysis. It includes steps for hardening the runner and uploading results.
Consider enabling the
repo_tokenfor enhanced checks if your repository is public and you want to enable the Branch-Protection check..github/workflows/lint.yml (1)
10-11: Consider adjusting permissions for security.The
contents: readpermission is set globally. Ensure this is the minimum required for the workflow.Run the following script to verify if any steps require additional permissions:
Verification successful
Permissions appear to be correctly set to
contents: read. The search did not reveal any steps requiring additional permissions. However, ensure that no implicit write operations occur within the workflow. If there's any uncertainty, consider a manual review of the workflow steps.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify if any steps require additional permissions. # Test: Check for usage of GitHub API tokens or actions that might need write permissions. rg --type yaml 'uses: ' -A 5 | grep -i 'permissions'Length of output: 52
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for common actions or commands that typically require write permissions. # Look for usage of actions that might require write permissions. rg --type yaml 'uses: ' -A 5 | grep -Ei 'git push|actions/checkout|GITHUB_TOKEN' # Additionally, search for any explicit mention of write permissions. rg --type yaml 'permissions: write' -A 5Length of output: 125
test/go.mod (3)
7-14: Review direct dependencies for necessity.Ensure that all direct dependencies are necessary for the project. Consider removing any that are not actively used.
Run the following script to verify the usage of direct dependencies:
Verification successful
Review unnecessary dependencies.
The following dependencies do not appear to be used directly in the codebase and may be unnecessary:
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/configgithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s3github.com/kr/prettyConsider reviewing these dependencies to determine if they can be removed.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify usage of direct dependencies. # Test: Check for imports of direct dependencies in the codebase. rg --type go 'import ' -A 5 | grep -E 'aws-sdk-go-v2|terratest|pretty'Length of output: 298
1-5: Ensure toolchain version compatibility.The
goandtoolchainversions are specified as1.21andgo1.21.4, respectively. Ensure compatibility with the project's requirements.Run the following script to verify the Go version compatibility:
16-121: Review indirect dependencies for relevance.The list of indirect dependencies is extensive. Ensure they are relevant and not bloating the module unnecessarily.
Run the following script to verify the relevance of indirect dependencies:
examples/simple/infracost-usage.yml (3)
5-5: Verify Infracost version compatibility.The version is specified as
0.1. Ensure it is compatible with the current Infracost setup.Run the following script to verify Infracost version compatibility:
7-14: Ensure usage estimates align with actual usage.The usage estimates for S3 storage and requests are specified. Verify that these estimates reflect actual or expected usage.
Run the following script to verify alignment with actual usage:
69-118: Review CloudFront usage estimates for accuracy.The usage estimates for CloudFront data transfer and requests are specified. Ensure these estimates are accurate and reflect expected usage patterns.
Run the following script to verify CloudFront usage estimates:
test/.golangci.yml (4)
22-22: Enable error checking for type assertions.The
errchecklinter is configured to check type assertions. This is a good practice to catch potential runtime errors.
63-70: Ignore comments in function length checks.The
funlenlinter is set to ignore comments when counting lines. This is a reasonable setting to focus on actual code complexity.
28-29: Re-evaluate exhaustive check settings.The
exhaustivelinter is set to check bothswitchandmap. Ensure this aligns with project needs.Run the following script to verify the necessity of exhaustive checks:
297-316: Review issue exclusion rules.Ensure that the exclusion rules for issues align with the project's coding standards and do not inadvertently hide important issues.
Run the following script to verify the impact of exclusion rules:
Verification successful
Review of Exclusion Rules Completed
The exclusion rules for "TODO" comments in the
.golangci.ymlfile appear to be intentional to prevent these placeholders from being flagged by the linter. No "noinspection" comments were found, so this part of the rule currently has no effect. Ensure these rules align with your project's coding standards and do not hide important issues.
- Instances of "TODO" comments found in
variables.tfandREADME.md.- No instances of "noinspection" comments found.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify impact of exclusion rules. # Test: Check for any issues that might be excluded due to these rules. golangci-lint run --out-format json | jq '.Issues[] | select(.Text | test("(noinspection|TODO)"))'Length of output: 181
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for TODO and noinspection comments in the codebase rg "TODO|noinspection" -A 3Length of output: 518
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Files selected for processing (6)
- README.md (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/ctx.tf (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/infracost-usage.yml (1 hunks)
- examples/simple/outputs.tf (1 hunks)
- outputs.tf (1 hunks)
- test/examples_simple_test.go (1 hunks)
Additional context used
checkov
examples/simple/ctx.tf
[MEDIUM] 1-8: Ensure Terraform module sources use a commit hash
(CKV_TF_1)
Additional comments not posted (5)
test/examples_simple_test.go (1)
1-173: Test implementation is comprehensive.The test is well-structured and covers important aspects of the Terraform configuration. Existing comments have already addressed improvements for error handling, naming conventions, and formatting.
Ensure these suggestions are implemented to enhance the test's robustness and maintainability.
README.md (1)
Line range hint
1-1: Formatting improvement acknowledged.The removal of the blank line before the "Usage" section is a minor formatting change that enhances the document's visual continuity. No further action is needed.
examples/simple/infracost-usage.yml (3)
9-14: Review storage and request estimates.The values for storage and requests are placeholders. Ensure they reflect realistic usage estimates for accurate cost calculations.
Verification successful
Review storage and request estimates.
The values for
storage_gbandmonthly_tier_2_requestsinexamples/simple/infracost-usage.ymlappear to be placeholders. Please ensure they reflect realistic usage estimates for accurate cost calculations.
storage_gb: 0.1monthly_tier_2_requests: 1000Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage estimates for storage and requests. # Test: Check if the values are placeholders or have been updated. rg --type yaml 'storage_gb: 0.1|monthly_tier_2_requests: 1000'Length of output: 273
5-5: Versioning: Verify compatibility.Ensure that the specified version
0.1is compatible with the tools and configurations being used.
69-118: Review CloudFront data transfer and request estimates.The values for data transfer and requests are placeholders. Ensure they reflect realistic usage estimates for accurate cost calculations.
Verification successful
Review CloudFront data transfer and request estimates.
The values for
monthly_data_transfer_to_internet_gbandmonthly_https_requestsinexamples/simple/infracost-usage.ymlappear to be placeholders. Please update them with realistic usage estimates to ensure accurate cost calculations.
monthly_data_transfer_to_internet_gbhas mostly zeros, with a small value of 0.1 for the US region.monthly_https_requestshas a value of 1000 for the US region and zeros for others.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage estimates for CloudFront data transfer and requests. # Test: Check if the values are placeholders or have been updated. rg --type yaml 'monthly_data_transfer_to_internet_gb:|monthly_https_requests: 1000'Length of output: 163
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Extract values for monthly_data_transfer_to_internet_gb and monthly_https_requests from the YAML file. rg --type yaml -A 10 'monthly_data_transfer_to_internet_gb:' examples/simple/infracost-usage.yml rg --type yaml -A 10 'monthly_https_requests:' examples/simple/infracost-usage.ymlLength of output: 1101
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Files selected for processing (4)
- examples/simple/outputs.tf (1 hunks)
- outputs.tf (1 hunks)
- test/examples_simple_test.go (1 hunks)
- variables.tf (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (3)
outputs.tf (1)
1-24: LGTM!The output definitions are well-structured with meaningful descriptions.
examples/simple/outputs.tf (1)
1-24: LGTM!The output definitions are well-structured with meaningful descriptions.
variables.tf (1)
19-38: LGTM!The variable definitions are well-structured with meaningful descriptions.
bendoerr
added
enhancement
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores