fix(security): clear base CVEs and review quota false positives - #1173
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 32 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe frontend build now applies a local minimatch compatibility patch and pinned dependency overrides. The CI governance gate separately narrows CodeRabbit issue-comment blocking detection and adds coverage for review-limit comments. ChangesFrontend dependency patching
Governance comment filtering
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
PR governance metadata gate is not ready for
|
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh`:
- Line 655: Update the assertion in the governance gate test to inspect the gate
output file, output.txt, instead of temp_dir/gh.log. Keep the existing
“Current-head CodeRabbit issue comment” pattern and assert it is absent from the
actual output used to classify blockers.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 6929063f-a893-4343-86c7-dc63e21da298
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
frontend/pnpm-lock.yamlis excluded by!**/pnpm-lock.yaml
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
Dockerfilefrontend/Dockerfilefrontend/package.jsonfrontend/patches/minimatch@3.1.5.patchfrontend/pnpm-workspace.yamlscripts/ci/pr_governance_gate.shscripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.sh
Summary
Security evidence
pnpm audit --audit-level moderate: no known vulnerabilitiesVerification
bash scripts/ci/test_pr_governance_gate.shpython -m pytest -q backend/tests/test_release_governance.py -k pr_governancepnpm install --frozen-lockfilewith pnpm 11.5.3 supply-chain policy verificationThis lands on trusted
developfirst so pull_request_target can reevaluate #1109 without the quota-notice false positive.Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
CI Improvements