Codex/security coderabbit fixes - #90
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 45 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: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 5e57dda817
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| const boundedBuilderEnd = Math.min(nextShareStart, builderEnd + 1); | ||
| if (content.slice(start, boundedBuilderEnd).includes("Intent.EXTRA_STREAM")) { | ||
| return boundedBuilderEnd; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When EXTRA_STREAM is added inside Intent(...).apply { ... } but clipData and FLAG_GRANT_READ_URI_PERMISSION are assigned to that same intent immediately afterward, this return truncates the scope at the closing brace and reports the safe share as missing both protections. Continue through the owning statement/function or track the constructed intent so legitimate post-builder configuration is included.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L147-L148
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| if (quote !== null) { | ||
| if (escaped) { | ||
| escaped = false; | ||
| } else if (content[cursor] === "\\") { | ||
| escaped = true; | ||
| } else if (content[cursor] === quote) { | ||
| quote = null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For a valid Kotlin log such as Log.i(TAG, "session ${foo("(")}"), the quote starting the nested string literal is treated as the end of the outer string, after which its ( is counted as a call delimiter. The resulting unmatched depth makes findBalancedDelimiterEnd return null, so the sensitive log is missed; ${...} expressions need their own lexical state so nested strings do not corrupt delimiter balancing.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
1 participant
No description provided.