feat: add scan with validation func to Scanner interface #298

cx-ben-alvo · 2025-06-08T07:23:14Z

Closes #

Proposed Changes

Checklist

I covered my changes with tests.
I Updated the documentation that is affected by my changes:
- Change in the CLI arguments
- Change in the configuration file

I submit this contribution under the Apache-2.0 license.

github-actions · 2025-06-08T07:23:46Z

KICS version: v1.7.13

	Category	Results
	HIGH	0
	MEDIUM	0
	LOW	0
	INFO	0
	TRACE	0
	TOTAL	0

Metric	Values
Files scanned	12
Files parsed	12
Files failed to scan	0
Total executed queries	53
Queries failed to execute	0
Execution time	1

github-actions · 2025-06-08T07:27:01Z

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 5d3d2486-d053-401c-b4ed-72af5e2e893e

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

cx-leonardo-fontes · 2025-06-11T09:54:38Z

pkg/scan.go

+	return s.runScan(scanItems, scanConfig, false)
+}
+
+func (s *scanner) ScanWithValidation(scanItems []ScanItem, scanConfig ScanConfig) (*reporting.Report, error) {


We can add the validate/withValidation bool variable to the ScanConfig struct and adapt existing functions instead of creating a new function. The idea is that eventually ScanConfig will allow any configuration that the current 2ms cli allows.

sounds good, I will make this changes

Yes, this should follow the Option pattern:
https://github.com/tmrts/go-patterns/blob/master/idiom/functional-options.md

cx-leonardo-fontes · 2025-06-11T09:57:58Z

cmd/workers.go

 	close(CvssScoreWithoutValidationChan)
 }

+func ProcessSecretsWithValidation() {


what is the reason to create this function? can we follow a similar strategy to the preRun function from cmd/main.go? The idea is to eventually refactor to have common logic from the 2ms cli flow instead of duplicated code, so it would be better to not create new logic

because it will require to change ProcessSecrets() signature, I dont know if it will cause breaking changes in other places that importing this repo

why will it require to change the ProcessSecrets() signature?

cx-leonardo-fontes · 2025-06-11T10:01:26Z

pkg/scan_test.go

+		}
+
+		testScanner := NewScanner()
+		actualReport, err := testScanner.ScanWithValidation(scanItems, ScanConfig{})


As you probably know, current we have an issue if we try to call the Scan function more than 1 time in a life cycle of our program (it probably has an easy fix, we just didn't have time for it yet). We tested calling this function twice in a row and we receive "close of a closed channel", so just be aware if your use case demands calling it multiple times

Hi it being called once in each execution of a CLI command, so i think it will be ok

cx-rogerio-dalot · 2025-06-11T10:06:15Z

pkg/scan.go

+	if withValidation {
+		go cmd.ProcessSecretsWithValidation()
+		go cmd.ProcessSecretsExtras()
+		go cmd.ProcessValidationAndScoreWithValidation(engineInstance)
+	} else {
+		go cmd.ProcessSecrets()
+		go cmd.ProcessSecretsExtras()
+		go cmd.ProcessScoreWithoutValidation(engineInstance)
+	}


Suggested change

if withValidation {

go cmd.ProcessSecretsWithValidation()

go cmd.ProcessSecretsExtras()

go cmd.ProcessValidationAndScoreWithValidation(engineInstance)

} else {

go cmd.ProcessSecrets()

go cmd.ProcessSecretsExtras()

go cmd.ProcessScoreWithoutValidation(engineInstance)

}

if withValidation {

go cmd.ProcessSecretsWithValidation()

go cmd.ProcessValidationAndScoreWithValidation(engineInstance)

} else {

go cmd.ProcessSecrets()

go cmd.ProcessScoreWithoutValidation(engineInstance)

}

go cmd.ProcessSecretsExtras()

cx-rogerio-dalot · 2025-06-11T10:13:43Z

go.mod

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-module github.com/checkmarx/2ms
+module github.com/checkmarx/2ms/v3


why are we jumping on the version here? If we don't have a strong reason to do this, we can stay here and not make people update their imports.

I needed to add to the module name the v3 suffix (this is go conventions in order to be able to import releases with major of 3..)

I understand that but my question is, why do we need to bump the version? If we are not making a significant change to the project and as far as I understand, we can add the suggested feature without impacting the current use of the 2ms, the version bump is not needed, right?

cx-rogerio-dalot · 2025-06-11T10:15:08Z

pkg/scan.go

+	return s.runScan(scanItems, scanConfig, false)
+}
+
+func (s *scanner) ScanWithValidation(scanItems []ScanItem, scanConfig ScanConfig) (*reporting.Report, error) {


Yes, this should follow the Option pattern:
https://github.com/tmrts/go-patterns/blob/master/idiom/functional-options.md

Closes # **Proposed Changes**  **Checklist** - [x] I covered my changes with tests. - [ ] I Updated the documentation that is affected by my changes: - [ ] Change in the CLI arguments - [ ] Change in the configuration file I submit this contribution under the Apache-2.0 license.

fix: update import paths to v3 for consistency across the codebase

9ca8225

cx-ben-alvo requested a review from a team as a code owner June 8, 2025 07:23

fix: update import path to v3 for consistency in createCLI function

1d71385

cx-ben-alvo changed the title ~~fix: update import paths to v3 for consistency across the codebase~~ Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner (AST-99448) Jun 8, 2025

cx-ben-alvo changed the title ~~Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner (AST-99448)~~ Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner AST-99448 Jun 8, 2025

added ignore ids

d1c07a1

cx-ben-alvo changed the title ~~Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner AST-99448~~ Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner Jun 8, 2025

cx-ben-alvo added 3 commits June 8, 2025 11:04

feat: add expected report with validation for scanning results

be21766

fix: update test values in .2ms.yml for consistency

e9b5bef

fix: add additional test values in .2ms.yml for consistency

08a7e69

cx-ben-alvo changed the title ~~Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner~~ feat: Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner Jun 8, 2025

cx-ben-alvo changed the title ~~feat: Add ScanWithValidation func to Scanner~~ feat: add scanwithvalidation func to Scanner Jun 8, 2025

feat: refactor scanning process to support validation option

db29ad9

cx-ben-alvo changed the title ~~feat: add scanwithvalidation func to Scanner~~ feat: add scan with validation func to Scanner interface Jun 8, 2025

cx-leonardo-fontes reviewed Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

cx-rogerio-dalot reviewed Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

feat: integrate validation option into scanning process

72cef92

cx-leonardo-fontes approved these changes Jun 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

cx-ben-alvo merged commit c6935eb into master Jun 11, 2025
12 checks passed

cx-ben-alvo deleted the other/benalvo/add-scan-with-validation branch June 11, 2025 10:50

		@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
		module github.com/checkmarx/2ms
		module github.com/checkmarx/2ms/v3

feat: add scan with validation func to Scanner interface #298

feat: add scan with validation func to Scanner interface #298

Uh oh!

Conversation

cx-ben-alvo commented Jun 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 8, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jun 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cx-leonardo-fontes Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cx-ben-alvo Jun 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

cx-ben-alvo commented Jun 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jun 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

cx-leonardo-fontes Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

cx-ben-alvo Jun 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading