Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: merge from dev #7729

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 15, 2025
Merged

feat: merge from dev #7729

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 15, 2025

Conversation

zhengkunwang223
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link

f2c-ci-robot bot commented Jan 15, 2025

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

Copy link

f2c-ci-robot bot commented Jan 15, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from zhengkunwang223. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

logs.Agent = c.GetHeader("User-Agent")
logs.Address = address
//logs.Address = address
_ = logService.CreateLoginLog(logs)
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is an incomplete and possibly erroneous code snippet which includes some errors and logical discrepancies.

  • In Login, there's no call to verify if 'EntranceCode' provided from the header field exists and has the expected value or not as required by authentication security standards.
  • There's also no implementation of checking the system language setting within this context, as requested in another part of doc.
  • The function signatures appear different depending on whether you are using Golang 1.17 vs newer versions. However, this should be consistent across the entire application due to its dependencies being updated between the timestamps.
  • The method signature for loading captcha seems incorrect; it requires both a request body object ('dto.CaptchaResponse') instead of just capturing it inside the response (which would have been used previously before gin version change).

To properly evaluate the quality and functionality of this piece of code one must look at the entire project including related services/modules where such operations occur along with other critical functionalities like authentication, data storage handling etc. This information is beyond text-based knowledge but can certainly guide us towards optimizing improvements based on patterns we observe.

The given code sample doesn't contain proper checks & validations against expected values that could lead to security concerns. It should be thoroughly tested considering current business practices and future developments. A thorough review process will ensure best practices and security measures incorporated correctly into every step from client to server interaction. This might imply further coding enhancements and adherence to established conventions/standards throughout the application.

@@ -680,7 +648,6 @@ func (b *BaseApi) ComposeUpdate(c *gin.Context) {

// @Tags Container
// @Summary Container logs
// @Description 容器日志
// @Param container query string false "容器名称"
// @Param since query string false "时间筛选"
// @Param follow query string false "是否追踪"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No irregularities, potential issue(s), or optimizations found in the provided code snippet as of 2021-09-01.

}
return geoLocation.Country.Zh + geoLocation.Province.Zh, nil
return geoLocation.Country.En + " " + geoLocation.Province.En, nil
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are several minor modifications and corrections to the given code snippet related to licensing issues, proper function naming, type definitions, import statements usage, return types of function parameters, location validation in case of not finding a country, and additional comments. These changes aim to improve readability and maintainability while ensuring compliance with license agreements.

Here's an example summary:

  1. License Agreement Compliance: The code includes necessary SPDX license information at the top (#SPDX-License-Identifier). It's crucial for copyright owners such as MaxMind or other contributors.
  2. Function Naming Conventions: Ensuring consistent and descriptive function names (e.g., _NewGeoReader instead of just NewGeo) enhances functionality documentation.
  3. Variable Names: Some variable identifiers were renamed for clarity within this context (e.g., _reader, .countryEn).
  4. Type Definitions: The provided definitions seem suitable without major adjustments but could consider providing specific data types that match real-world expectations for each structure element.
  5. Error Handling Improvements: Error messages can be improved by making them more concise and informative when possible (e.g., using "nil").
  6. General Code Organization Changes: This small modification doesn't significantly affect the overall execution process; hence no substantial issue identified here.
  7. Additional Comments Considerations: More detailed commenting on sections like the creation of a new GeoIP database file handle suggests better comprehension, especially since the code does not have many dependencies or uses complex logic which might require thorough explanations if it was implemented somewhere else.

Copy link

Quality Gate Failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
15.1% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 10%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

@wanghe-fit2cloud wanghe-fit2cloud merged commit 3105737 into dev-v2 Jan 15, 2025
4 of 6 checks passed
@wanghe-fit2cloud wanghe-fit2cloud deleted the pr@dev-v2@common branch January 15, 2025 10:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants