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

Added github workflows on release branches and fix migration workflow issues #860

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Nov 7, 2023

Conversation

dlpzx
Copy link
Contributor

@dlpzx dlpzx commented Nov 7, 2023

Feature or Bugfix

  • Feature
  • Bugfix

Detail

  • Add all applicable GitHub workflows to PRs pointing at v2m* branches
  • fix semgrep finding issue from GitHub workflows from migration script for notifications type --> added nosemgrep as no user input is passed to the SQL query and only code administrators will have access to the query.
  • fix migration validation: this one is tricky as it succeeds when running it locally and on a real pipeline. It turns out that the issue was not on the migration script itself but on the way we dropped and updated tables in the validation migration stage. For dropping tables, we were using a different schema that the one used in upgrade database. This PR removes the schema_name variable and uses the envname as schema for all cases. One final note, this issue might be related to data.all in local environment starts in a broken db state #788.

Here some screenshots of the resulting local schema for the notification table after running make drop-tables and make upgrade-db
image

Relates

  • V2.1 release

Security

Please answer the questions below briefly where applicable, or write N/A. Based on
OWASP 10.

  • Does this PR introduce or modify any input fields or queries - this includes
    fetching data from storage outside the application (e.g. a database, an S3 bucket)?
    • Is the input sanitized?
    • What precautions are you taking before deserializing the data you consume?
    • Is injection prevented by parametrizing queries?
    • Have you ensured no eval or similar functions are used?
  • Does this PR introduce any functionality or component that requires authorization?
    • How have you ensured it respects the existing AuthN/AuthZ mechanisms?
    • Are you logging failed auth attempts?
  • Are you using or adding any cryptographic features?
    • Do you use a standard proven implementations?
    • Are the used keys controlled by the customer? Where are they stored?
  • Are you introducing any new policies/roles/users?
    • Have you used the least-privilege principle? How?

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@dlpzx dlpzx requested a review from noah-paige November 7, 2023 08:46
@dlpzx
Copy link
Contributor Author

dlpzx commented Nov 7, 2023

Tested in AWS to verify migrations and validate migrations succeed

Copy link
Contributor

@noah-paige noah-paige left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm - approving

@dlpzx dlpzx merged commit 473a1b6 into v2m1m0 Nov 7, 2023
9 checks passed
@dlpzx dlpzx deleted the fix/migration-script-v21 branch November 8, 2023 08:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants