Fix #246 #247
Fix #246 #247
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@pengweiqhca has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 24 minutes and 36 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several modifications across the Apollo configuration management library. The changes primarily involve updating secret values, adding a new Changes
Poem
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 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.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
demo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json (1)
9-9: Consider implementing secure secret management practicesEven for demo purposes, consider these security improvements:
- Use environment variables or secure secret management solutions instead of hardcoding secrets
- Add documentation indicating this is a demo-only configuration
- Consider using a placeholder value and documenting the actual value in a separate, non-versioned file
Would you like me to help create a template for implementing secure secret management or documentation for this demo project?
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
9-9: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloConfigurationSource.cs (1)
9-11: Add XML documentation for public propertiesWhile the property changes improve the API design, please add XML documentation to describe their purpose and usage.
Add documentation like this:
+/// <summary> +/// Gets the configuration section key. +/// </summary> public string? SectionKey { get; } +/// <summary> +/// Gets the configuration repository instance. +/// </summary> public IConfigRepository ConfigRepository { get; }src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloOptions.cs (1)
130-131: Add XML documentation for the Label propertyOther properties in this class have XML documentation explaining their purpose and constraints. Consider adding documentation for the new Label property to maintain consistency.
Add documentation like this:
+ /// <summary> + /// Gets or sets the label for configuration items. + /// </summary> public string? Label { get; set; }src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloConfigurationExtensions.cs (1)
80-80: Extra space in method signatureThere's an extra space after the return type in the method signature.
- public static IApolloConfigurationBuilder AddNamespace(this IApolloConfigurationBuilder builder, string @namespace, string? sectionKey, ConfigFileFormat format = ConfigFileFormat.Properties) + public static IApolloConfigurationBuilder AddNamespace(this IApolloConfigurationBuilder builder, string @namespace, string? sectionKey, ConfigFileFormat format = ConfigFileFormat.Properties)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (19)
Apollo.sln(1 hunks)demo/Apollo.AspNet.Demo/Web.config(1 hunks)demo/Apollo.AspNetCore.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json(1 hunks)demo/Apollo.Configuration.Demo/appsettings.json(1 hunks)demo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json(1 hunks)demo/Directory.Build.targets(1 hunks)src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloConfigurationExtensions.cs(2 hunks)src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloConfigurationSource.cs(1 hunks)src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloOptions.cs(1 hunks)src/Apollo.ConfigurationManager/Util/ConfigUtil.cs(1 hunks)src/Apollo.OpenApi/NamespaceClientExtensions.cs(1 hunks)src/Apollo/IApolloOptions.cs(1 hunks)src/Apollo/Internals/LocalFileConfigRepository.cs(1 hunks)src/Apollo/Internals/RemoteConfigRepository.cs(4 hunks)src/Directory.Build.props(1 hunks)src/Directory.Build.targets(1 hunks)test/Apollo.Configuration.Tests/ApolloConfigurationBuilderTest.cs(1 hunks)test/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Tests/App.config(1 hunks)test/Directory.Build.targets(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- demo/Directory.Build.targets
- src/Directory.Build.props
- src/Apollo.OpenApi/NamespaceClientExtensions.cs
- demo/Apollo.AspNet.Demo/Web.config
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
demo/Apollo.AspNetCore.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json
15-15: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
demo/Apollo.Configuration.Demo/appsettings.json
6-6: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
demo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json
9-9: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (14)
demo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json (1)
9-9: Verify the security implications of the exposed Apollo secret
While this appears to be a demo configuration, it's important to ensure this secret value is not used in any production environments.
✅ Verification successful
Secret value is safely confined to demo and test environments
The secret value 78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a is only used in demo and test configuration files:
- demo/Apollo.AspNetCore.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json
- demo/Apollo.Configuration.Demo/appsettings.json
- demo/Apollo.AspNet.Demo/Web.config
- demo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json
- test/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Tests/App.config
No instances of this secret were found in production code or configuration files, confirming it's properly isolated to non-production environments.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if this secret is used in any non-demo configuration files
# Search for the secret value in all files, excluding demo directories
rg -g '!demo/*' '78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a'
# Check if there are any production configuration files that might contain this secret
fd -g '*[pP]rod*.json' -g '*[pP]roduction*.json' -g '*[pP]rod*.config' -x grep -l "Apollo:Secret"
Length of output: 442
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify more thoroughly with better search patterns
# Check all configuration files for this secret
fd -e json -e config -e xml --exec grep -l "78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a" {}
# Look for any Apollo secret configurations in the main source code (non-test, non-demo)
fd -e cs -e json -e config -e xml --exclude 'demo/*' --exclude 'test/*' --exec grep -l "Apollo:Secret" {}
# Check if this is documented as a demo/test secret
fd README -e md | xargs grep -l -i "demo.*secret\|test.*secret\|sample.*secret"
Length of output: 543
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
9-9: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
test/Directory.Build.targets (1)
7-7: Verify impact of RollForward=Major setting
Setting RollForward to Major allows tests to run on newer major versions of .NET runtime. While this provides flexibility, it could potentially lead to inconsistent test behavior across different environments.
✅ Verification successful
RollForward=Major setting is safe to use in this context
The setting is aligned with the project's configuration:
- All test projects target both .NET Framework 4.7.2 and .NET 6.0
- The global.json already uses
"rollForward": "latestMajor"for SDK selection - No explicit runtime version constraints are defined in the projects
- The parent Directory.Build.targets doesn't contain any conflicting version settings
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for potential version constraints in test projects
fd -e csproj . test/ --exec grep -l "TargetFramework"
# Check global.json for SDK version constraints
cat global.json 2>/dev/null || echo "No global.json found"
Length of output: 494
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check target framework versions in test projects
fd -e csproj . test/ --exec cat {} \; | grep -A 1 "<TargetFramework"
# Check if there are any runtime version constraints
fd -e csproj . test/ --exec cat {} \; | grep -A 1 "<RuntimeFrameworkVersion"
# Check parent Directory.Build.targets for any version-related settings
cat Directory.Build.targets 2>/dev/null || echo "No parent Directory.Build.targets found"
Length of output: 894
src/Directory.Build.targets (1)
12-12: Consider pinning the analyzer version
While adding ConfigureAwaitChecker.Analyzer is good for preventing async/await deadlocks, using a wildcard version (5.*) might lead to unexpected analyzer behavior in the future. Consider pinning to a specific version.
- <PackageReference Include="ConfigureAwaitChecker.Analyzer" Version="5.*" PrivateAssets="All" />
+ <PackageReference Include="ConfigureAwaitChecker.Analyzer" Version="5.0.0" PrivateAssets="All" />Apollo.sln (1)
29-31: LGTM: Good solution organization
Adding Directory.Build.targets to the Demo solution folder helps maintain consistent build settings across demo projects.
test/Apollo.Configuration.Tests/ApolloConfigurationBuilderTest.cs (1)
19-19: LGTM: Type change aligns with refactoring
The change from ApolloConfigurationProvider to ApolloConfigurationSource correctly reflects the architectural changes in the main code.
Let's verify the test coverage for both types:
✅ Verification successful
Type change is consistent with the codebase architecture
The verification confirms that:
ApolloConfigurationSourceis now the primary configuration interface, whileApolloConfigurationProvideris internally used by the source- The test change aligns with this architecture where
ApolloConfigurationSourceis the correct type to test against - No other test files need updates as
ApolloConfigurationBuilderTest.csis the only test file using these types
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other tests that might need similar updates
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ {
$$$
[Fact]
$$$
OfType<ApolloConfigurationProvider>()
$$$
}'
Length of output: 102
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search for any remaining usages of ApolloConfigurationProvider in tests
rg "ApolloConfigurationProvider" --type cs
# Also search for ApolloConfigurationSource usage to confirm the refactoring
rg "ApolloConfigurationSource" --type cs
# Let's also check test files specifically for both patterns
fd "Test.cs$" --exec rg -l "ApolloConfiguration(Provider|Source)"
Length of output: 1347
src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloConfigurationSource.cs (1)
24-24: LGTM: Clean implementation with proper thread safety
The changes maintain thread safety with Interlocked.Exchange and provide a clear string representation of the configuration source.
Also applies to: 27-29
src/Apollo/IApolloOptions.cs (2)
Line range hint 40-42: LGTM: Collection type improvements
Good improvement changing from ReadOnlyCollection<string>? to IReadOnlyCollection<string>?. This provides more flexibility while maintaining immutability guarantees.
Also applies to: 45-47, 50-52
60-64: Review implementation of Label property across frameworks
The default implementation for NETSTANDARD2_1_OR_GREATER always returns an empty string, while other frameworks require explicit implementation. This could lead to inconsistent behavior across different framework versions.
Let's verify the usage of this property:
Consider:
- Documenting the expected behavior in XML comments
- Using a consistent implementation across frameworks
- Adding validation for the Label value if there are any constraints
✅ Verification successful
Implementation of Label property is consistent with framework-specific patterns
The verification shows that the Label property implementation is actually following a consistent pattern across the codebase:
- In ConfigUtil.cs, it's implemented as an expression-bodied property that retrieves the value from configuration
- In ApolloOptions.cs, it's implemented as a standard property with getter/setter
- The interface's conditional compilation ensures compatibility:
- For NETSTANDARD2.1+: Uses modern C# expression-bodied member syntax with a default value
- For older frameworks: Uses traditional property syntax allowing implementations to provide their own logic
The different syntaxes in the interface don't lead to inconsistent behavior as implementations properly handle the property according to their needs.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for Label property usage
rg -l "Label\s*[=\{]" --type cs
# Search for framework-specific implementations
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ : IApolloOptions {
$$$
Label $$$
$$$
}'
Length of output: 232
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual implementations and usages
rg "Label\s*[=\{]" -A 5 -B 5 --type cs
# Also check if there are any XML docs for the Label property
rg -A 2 "/// .*Label" --type cs
Length of output: 2140
src/Apollo.Configuration/ApolloConfigurationExtensions.cs (1)
92-94: LGTM: Type check alignment improves consistency
The change from ApolloConfigurationProvider to ApolloConfigurationSource in the type check aligns with the actual type being used throughout the method, making the code more consistent.
src/Apollo/Internals/LocalFileConfigRepository.cs (1)
64-64: LGTM: Improved async/await pattern usage
Adding ConfigureAwait(false) is a good practice in library code as it:
- Prevents potential deadlocks in synchronization contexts
- Improves performance by avoiding unnecessary context switches
src/Apollo.ConfigurationManager/Util/ConfigUtil.cs (1)
213-214: LGTM: New Label property follows established patterns
The new Label property follows the established patterns in the class:
- Uses nullable string type appropriately
- Retrieves value using GetAppConfig consistently
- Aligns with similar changes in ApolloOptions and IApolloOptions
Let's verify the Label property usage across the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
LGTM: Label property is properly integrated and used
The verification confirms that:
- The Label property is correctly defined in both
IApolloOptionsandConfigUtil - It's actively used in
RemoteConfigRepository.csfor configuration purposes (var label = _options.Label) - The implementation follows the same pattern as other configuration properties in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Label property usage
rg -A 2 "Label\s*=>" --type cs
# Check for any direct string references to "Label"
rg "\"Label\"" --type cs
Length of output: 488
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for any usage of the Label property in method calls or assignments
ast-grep --pattern 'Label = $_'
# Check for any usage of Label in method parameters or conditions
ast-grep --pattern '$_.Label'
# Check if Label is used in configuration initialization
rg -B 2 -A 2 "new ApolloOptions|new ConfigUtil" --type cs
Length of output: 5820
src/Apollo/Internals/RemoteConfigRepository.cs (3)
100-100: LGTM: Label initialization from options
The label is correctly retrieved from the options object.
121-121: LGTM: Label parameter passed to URL assembly
The label is properly forwarded to the AssembleQueryConfigUrl method.
Line range hint 183-214: Verify error handling for malformed label values
While the implementation looks correct, we should ensure proper handling of malformed label values.
Let's verify the URL encoding behavior:
Consider adding input validation for the label parameter:
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(label))
{
+ // Validate label format
+ if (label.IndexOfAny(Path.GetInvalidFileNameChars()) >= 0)
+ throw new ArgumentException("Label contains invalid characters", nameof(label));
query["label"] = label!;
}| @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ | |||
| "commandName": "IISExpress", | |||
| "environmentVariables": { | |||
| "DOTNET_Apollo:MetaServer": "http://81.68.181.139:8080/", | |||
| "DOTNET_Apollo:Secret": "8dfdf40b419841a3b8a6e1629aeb8eab", | |||
| "DOTNET_Apollo:Secret": "78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Security: Hardcoded Apollo secret found in multiple configuration files
The Apollo secret 78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a is exposed in multiple configuration files across the codebase:
test/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Tests/App.configdemo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.jsondemo/Apollo.Configuration.Demo/appsettings.jsondemo/Apollo.AspNetCore.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.jsondemo/Apollo.AspNet.Demo/Web.config
This is a security risk as secrets should not be committed to source control. Consider:
- Using environment variables or a secrets management system
- Providing template files with placeholder values (e.g.,
Apollo:Secret": "<your-secret-here>") - Adding these files to
.gitignoreif they are meant for local development only
🔗 Analysis chain
Security: Avoid committing secrets to source control
The Apollo secret should not be committed directly to source control. Consider:
- Using environment variables or a secrets management system
- Providing a template file with placeholder values
Let's verify if this secret is exposed in other configuration files:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the secret value across all files
rg -l "78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a"
# Search for any Apollo secret configurations
rg -i "apollo.*secret"
Length of output: 1018
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
15-15: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
| @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ | |||
| <appSettings configBuilders="AppSettingsSectionBuilder"> | |||
| <add key="Apollo:AppId" value="apollo.net" /> | |||
| <add key="Apollo:EnablePlaceholder" value="true" /> | |||
| <add key="Apollo:Secret" value="8dfdf40b419841a3b8a6e1629aeb8eab" /> | |||
| <add key="Apollo:Secret" value="78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a" /> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Security: Hardcoded secret value found in multiple configuration files
The secret value "78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a" is present in multiple configuration files across test and demo projects:
- test/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Tests/App.config
- demo/Apollo.Configuration.Demo/appsettings.json
- demo/Apollo.ConfigurationManager.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json
- demo/Apollo.AspNet.Demo/Web.config
- demo/Apollo.AspNetCore.Demo/Properties/launchSettings.json
While this might be acceptable for test and demo purposes, having the same secret value across multiple files increases the risk of it being accidentally used in production environments. Consider:
- Using placeholder values or dummy secrets for demos and tests
- Adding a note in the configuration files to remind developers not to use these values in production
- Adding these files to .gitignore if they're meant to be templates
🔗 Analysis chain
Security: Consider environment-specific secret management
The secret value is hardcoded in the configuration file and appears across multiple files. While this is acceptable for tests, consider:
- Using environment variables or secure secret management for production
- Using different secrets for different environments
Let's check for other instances of this secret:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the secret value across all files
rg -l "78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a"
Length of output: 301
| @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ | |||
| "AppId": "apollo.net", | |||
| "Cluster": "test", | |||
| "MetaServer": "http://localhost:8080/", | |||
| "Secret": "8dfdf40b419841a3b8a6e1629aeb8eab", | |||
| "Secret": "78cea9ce373b4728bf5695c3cee8748a", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Security: Consider moving sensitive values to secure storage
The secret value is exposed in the configuration file. While this might be acceptable for demo purposes, it's recommended to:
- Move secrets to secure storage (e.g., environment variables, key vault)
- Use placeholder values in checked-in configuration files
For production environments, consider:
- Using Azure Key Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, or similar services
- Implementing secret rotation
- Using configuration transforms for different environments
🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks (8.21.2)
6-6: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores