Repository navigation
evidence(OMN-17188): OCC evidence for OmniNode-ai/omnidash#305 - #7788
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reachedNext included review available in 41 minutes. View limit detailsLimit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. Your 138 included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 1 review per hour. Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. Review configuration: ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
Comment |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Appends a dod_evidence entry + PASS receipt binding OMN-17188 to OmniNode-ai/omnidash#305.
#305 is the second attempt at CodeQL alerts #14/#15, diagnosed from the analysis SARIF rather than guessed. The data-flow path ran straight THROUGH both replace calls, so CodeQL treated neither as a sanitizer. The query source is decisive:
StringReplaceSanitizerrequiresreplaces(s, "") and s.regexpMatch("\\n"), andreplaces(old,new)resolvesnewviagetRawReplacement().mayHaveStringValue— so a' 'replacement yieldsnew = " "and never matches. #304's character-class-vs-alternation theory was wrong; the replacement string was the defect.Append-only: the #302 and #304 entries and receipts are untouched.
Evidence-Source: OCC#7788
Evidence-Ticket: OMN-17188