Public report — bamboo-engine, published 5 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
156findings with an exact file:lineof 169 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
22/94dimensions across the health lenses31062 LoC — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
sunriseme/bamboo-engine carries serious gaps (45%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (81%) is solid too.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Security (34%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (46%) is the next concern — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 16 Medium finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)); 15 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)); SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling).
For scale: Medium (~31,062 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.4 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.7× (at 45% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€56,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 34% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with poetry.lock (7).
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 34%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 16 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with models.py (4), redis_backend.py (4), fields.py (3). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 16 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with models.py (4), redis_backend.py (4), fields.py (3).
Architecture — module dependency matrix
501 modules, 112 dependencies — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
31
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
14
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by resolving the 16 medium and 15 high-priority static analysis findings, prioritizing the files with the highest counts. Next, integrate a security scanning step into the CI pipeline to ensure that security regressions fail the build. Finally, implement a draft release process to prevent bad builds from being published and maintain a changelog to track each release.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with poetry.lock (7).
Resolve the 15 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with engine_unittest.yml (3), runtime_pipeline_python_package_poetry.yml (3), runtime_pipeline_unittest.yml (3).
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 21 of 22 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 22 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 156 of 169 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (2): D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 gateway.match_converge (cyclomatic 37) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with gateway.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 BoolRule._test_tokens (cyclomatic 18) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with boolrule.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 boolrule.double_equals_trans (cyclomatic 18) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with boolrule.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 28 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 gateway.match_converge (cognitive 58) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with gateway.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 boolrule.double_equals_trans (cognitive 36) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with boolrule.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 gateway.validate_gateways (cognitive 29) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with gateway.py (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×15.github/workflows/engine_flake8_and_black.yml:16detected by semgrep finding
Medium: mako-templates-detected · ×16bamboo_engine/template/template.py:185detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 16 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with models.py (4), redis_backend.py (4), fields.py (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 15 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with engine_unittest.yml (3), runtime_pipeline_python_package_poetry.yml (3), runtime_pipeline_unittest.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
139 of 139 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py.
Largest orphaned file · ×3runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py
Dormant codebase
What to do
Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with nr_pickle.py, core.py, engine.py. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Secret passed as a command-line argument finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.
Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×7runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted]runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×6poetry.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
What to do
Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with poetry.lock (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with poetry.lock (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with poetry.lock. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies — a domain aggregate fused to a persistence ORM (Django/SQLAlchemy) on its own declaration (active-record) couples the domain to infrastructure. The clean-architecture dependency rule.
Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.
Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.
`DjCeleryPeriodicTask` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — models.py:149
`PeriodicTask` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — models.py:88
`PipelineProcess` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — core.py:200
`ScheduleService` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — core.py:1058
`PipelineTemplate` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — models.py:273
`PipelineInstance` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Django/SQLAlchemy — `models.Model`/`db.Model`) — the domain entity IS the ORM row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — models.py:595
What to do
Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack as a CI step.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: bandit, `semgrep --config=p/python`, or CodeQL's python pack — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not included — 72 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~32459 lines of test source are present (.py) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.py) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .py, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.py) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_flake8_and_black.yml:16— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_flake8_and_black.yml:18— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_python_package_poetry.yml:12— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_python_package_poetry.yml:14— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: JRubics/poetry-publish@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `JRubics/poetry-publish@v1.8`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/JRubics/poetry-publish/commits/v1.8 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_unittest.yml:16— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_unittest.yml:17— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/engine_unittest.yml:35— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: codecov/codecov-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `codecov/codecov-action@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/codecov/codecov-action/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_flake8_and_black.yml:16— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_flake8_and_black.yml:18— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_python_package_poetry.yml:12— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_python_package_poetry.yml:14— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_python_package_poetry.yml:19— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: abatilo/actions-poetry@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `abatilo/actions-poetry@v2.0.0`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/abatilo/actions-poetry/commits/v2.0.0 --jq .sha`. Note that `v2.0.0` is an exact release tag rather than a floating major: it is still mutable (a tag can be repointed), but by convention it moves only on a force-push, so pin the floating-major and branch references in this file first.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_unittest.yml:21— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_unittest.yml:23— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-python@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-python@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-python/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_unittest.yml:33— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: abatilo/actions-poetry@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `abatilo/actions-poetry@v2.0.0`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/abatilo/actions-poetry/commits/v2.0.0 --jq .sha`. Note that `v2.0.0` is an exact release tag rather than a floating major: it is still mutable (a tag can be repointed), but by convention it moves only on a force-push, so pin the floating-major and branch references in this file first.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· High CVE · ×7
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— celery 4.4.7: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 5.2.2
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— certifi 2021.5.30: [GHSA redacted] — certifi is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or raise its floor in your own manifest and re-resolve (`poetry update certifi`)). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against certifi 2021.5.30, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2024.7.4 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2024.7.4 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against certifi 2021.5.30: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2024-230.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] poetry.lock— mako 1.1.5: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares mako ^1.1.4, a range that ALREADY admits the fixed 1.3.12, so there is no manifest edit to make here. Re-resolve the lock so mako moves onto 1.3.12 or later; if the flagged 1.1.5 comes back, a dependency is pinning it — upgrade that dependent, or pin mako in your constraints file so only one copy resolves. This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against mako 1.1.5, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.3.12 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.3.12 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 2 dependency files: poetry.lock, runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock) This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against mako 1.1.5: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— sqlparse 0.4.2: [GHSA redacted] — sqlparse is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or raise its floor in your own manifest and re-resolve (`poetry update sqlparse`)). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against sqlparse 0.4.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 0.5.4 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 0.5.4 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against sqlparse 0.4.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— ujson 4.1.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 5.12.1. This is 1 of 6 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against ujson 4.1.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 5525f8c9ef8bb879dadd0eb942d524827d1b0362 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 5525f8c9ef8bb879dadd0eb942d524827d1b0362 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 6 advisories this scan raises against ujson 4.1.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], OSV-2021-955.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— urllib3 1.26.7: [GHSA redacted] — urllib3 is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or raise its floor in your own manifest and re-resolve (`poetry update urllib3`)). This is 1 of 8 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against urllib3 1.26.7, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.26.19 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.26.19 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 8 advisories this scan raises against urllib3 1.26.7: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] poetry.lock— werkzeug 1.0.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 3.0.3. This is 1 of 9 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against werkzeug 1.0.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.1.6 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.1.6 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 2 dependency files: poetry.lock, runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock) This one row stands for the 9 advisories this scan raises against werkzeug 1.0.1: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2022-203, PYSEC-2023-221, PYSEC-2023-57.
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— django 2.2.24: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.28. This is 1 of 14 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against django 2.2.24, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.2.28 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.2.28 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 14 advisories this scan raises against django 2.2.24: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium: mako-templates-detected bamboo_engine/template/template.py:185— Mako templates do not provide a global HTML escaping mechanism. This means you must escape all sensitive data in your templates using '| u' for URL escaping or '| h' for HTML escaping. If you are using Mako to serve web content, consider using a system such as Jinja2 which enables global escaping. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: mako-templates-detected runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/expression.py:156— Mako templates do not provide a global HTML escaping mechanism. This means you must escape all sensitive data in your templates using '| u' for URL escaping or '| h' for HTML escaping. If you are using Mako to serve web content, consider using a system such as Jinja2 which enables global escaping. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/django_signal_valve/models.py:28— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/django_signal_valve/models.py:32— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/data/redis_backend.py:25— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/data/redis_backend.py:34— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/data/redis_backend.py:40— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/data/redis_backend.py:46— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/fields.py:32— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/fields.py:40— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/fields.py:43— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/serializer.py:28— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: avoid-pickle runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/serializer.py:36— Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Medium: insecure-hash-algorithm-md5 runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/models.py:61— Detected MD5 hash algorithm which is considered insecure. MD5 is not collision resistant and is therefore not suitable as a cryptographic signature. Use SHA256 or SHA3 instead.
Medium: insecure-hash-algorithm-md5 runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/models.py:96— Detected MD5 hash algorithm which is considered insecure. MD5 is not collision resistant and is therefore not suitable as a cryptographic signature. Use SHA256 or SHA3 instead.
Medium: insecure-uuid-version runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/uniqid.py:20— Using UUID version 1 for UUID generation can lead to predictable UUIDs based on system information (e.g., MAC address, timestamp). This may lead to security risks such as the sandwich attack. Consider using `uuid.uuid4()` instead for better randomness and security. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/template/template.py:186— bamboo_engine/template/template.py:186-195 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/expression.py:157-166 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:483— bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:483-492 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:487-496 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/component_framework/constant.py:35— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/component_framework/constant.py:35-44 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/models.py:144-153 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:62— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:62-71 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:111-121 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:62` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:84— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:84-93 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:159-168 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/tasks.py:84` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:42— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:42-51 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:85-94 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/http.py:24— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/http.py:24-33 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/http.py:39-48 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium CVE · ×6
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] poetry.lock— black 20.8b1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 24.3.0. This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against black 20.8b1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 26.3.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 26.3.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 2 dependency files: poetry.lock, runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock) This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against black 20.8b1: [GHSA redacted], PYSEC-2026-2120, PYSEC-2026-2121.
Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2132 poetry.lock— click 8.0.1: PYSEC-2026-2132 — click is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or raise its floor in your own manifest and re-resolve (`poetry update click`)). (in 2 dependency files: poetry.lock, runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock)
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— idna 3.2: [GHSA redacted] — idna is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or raise its floor in your own manifest and re-resolve (`poetry update idna`)). This is 1 of 2 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against idna 3.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.15 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.15 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 2 advisories this scan raises against idna 3.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] poetry.lock— pytest 6.2.5: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 9.0.3 (in 2 dependency files: poetry.lock, runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock)
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock— requests 2.26.0: [GHSA redacted] — this repo declares requests ^2.22.0, a range that ALREADY admits the fixed 2.32.4, so there is no manifest edit to make here. Re-resolve the lock so requests moves onto 2.32.4 or later; if the flagged 2.26.0 comes back, a dependency is pinning it — upgrade that dependent, or pin requests in your constraints file so only one copy resolves. This is 1 of 4 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against requests 2.26.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.33.0 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.33.0 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 4 advisories this scan raises against requests 2.26.0: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] poetry.lock— zipp 3.5.0: [GHSA redacted] — zipp is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or raise its floor in your own manifest and re-resolve (`poetry update zipp`)). (in 2 dependency files: poetry.lock, runtime/bamboo-pipeline/poetry.lock)
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:167— bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:167-181 | bamboo_engine/handlers/parallel_gateway.py:68-82 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:167` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/converge_gateway.py:43— bamboo_engine/handlers/converge_gateway.py:43-57 | bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_start_event.py:100-114 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/converge_gateway.py:43` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_end_event.py:104— bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_end_event.py:104-118 | bamboo_engine/handlers/executable_end_event.py:95-109 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_end_event.py:104` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/template/template.py:112— bamboo_engine/template/template.py:112-126 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/expression.py:104-118 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/api.py:296— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/api.py:296-310 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/api.py:538-555 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/builder/builder.py:168— bamboo_engine/builder/builder.py:168-181 | bamboo_engine/builder/builder.py:182-197 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/service_activity.py:100— bamboo_engine/handlers/service_activity.py:100-113 | bamboo_engine/handlers/subprocess.py:78-91 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:46— bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:46-59 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:46-59 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/builder/builder.py:176— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/builder/builder.py:176-189 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/builder/builder.py:190-204 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/data.py:182— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/data.py:182-195 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/data.py:204-219 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/data.py:182` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:131— bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:131-141 | bamboo_engine/handlers/exclusive_gateway.py:136-146 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:131` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/string.py:23— bamboo_engine/utils/string.py:23-33 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/flow/gateway.py:60-70 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:127— bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:127-137 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:131-141 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:524— bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:524-534 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:525-535 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/runtime.py:307— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/runtime.py:307-317 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/runtime.py:327-337 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_start_event.py:98— bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_start_event.py:98-106 | bamboo_engine/handlers/parallel_gateway.py:62-72 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/empty_start_event.py:98` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:212— bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:212-220 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:212-220 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/mako_utils/code_extract.py:37— bamboo_engine/utils/mako_utils/code_extract.py:37-45 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/mako_utils/code_extract.py:36-44 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/models.py:56— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/models.py:56-64 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/models.py:149-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/periodic_task/models.py:56` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/context.py:44— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/context.py:44-55 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/context.py:187-195 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/context.py:44` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/engine.py:272— bamboo_engine/engine.py:272-287 | bamboo_engine/engine.py:315-330 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/engine.py:272` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/engine.py:360— bamboo_engine/engine.py:360-377 | bamboo_engine/engine.py:404-419 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:129— bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:129-144 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:129-144 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:225— bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:225-240 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:225-240 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:76— bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:76-87 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:76-87 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:76` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/graph.py:38— bamboo_engine/utils/graph.py:38-49 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/graph.py:38-49 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/schedule.py:165— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/schedule.py:165-176 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/schedule.py:212-223 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/schedule.py:165` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:87— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:87-98 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:117-128 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:87` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
FileTooLong: models/nr_pickle.py runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:0— FileTooLong — 1113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: models/core.py runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/core.py:0— FileTooLong — 900 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: bamboo_engine/engine.py bamboo_engine/engine.py:0— FileTooLong — 714 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/builder/builder.py:69— bamboo_engine/builder/builder.py:69-88 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/builder/builder.py:69-88 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:101— bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:101-121 | bamboo_engine/handlers/exclusive_gateway.py:107-126 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/conditional_parallel_gateway.py:101` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:368— bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:368-387 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:372-391 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/handlers/service_activity.py:129— bamboo_engine/handlers/service_activity.py:129-147 | bamboo_engine/handlers/subprocess.py:99-115 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/handlers/service_activity.py:129` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:150— bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:150-166 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:154-170 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:150` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/task.py:78— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/task.py:78-94 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/task.py:124-140 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/task.py:78` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/template/sandbox.py:39— bamboo_engine/template/sandbox.py:39-45 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/sandbox.py:51-57 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/utils/graph.py:17— bamboo_engine/utils/graph.py:17-23 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/graph.py:17-23 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/pipeline_parser.py:245— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/pipeline_parser.py:245-251 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/pipeline_parser.py:255-261 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/pipeline_parser.py:245` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
gateway.match_converge (cyclomatic 37) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:84— gateway.match_converge has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
gateway.match_converge (cyclomatic 37) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:88— gateway.match_converge has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
BoolRule._test_tokens (cyclomatic 18) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:224— BoolRule._test_tokens has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
BoolRule._test_tokens (cyclomatic 18) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:224— BoolRule._test_tokens has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
boolrule.double_equals_trans (cyclomatic 18) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:116— boolrule.double_equals_trans has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
boolrule.double_equals_trans (cyclomatic 18) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:116— boolrule.double_equals_trans has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
gateway.validate_gateways (cyclomatic 17) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:306— gateway.validate_gateways has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
gateway.validate_gateways (cyclomatic 17) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:310— gateway.validate_gateways has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
gateway.match_converge (cognitive 58) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:84— gateway.match_converge has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 40, boolean chains 11, loops 7 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
gateway.match_converge (cognitive 58) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:88— gateway.match_converge has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 40, boolean chains 11, loops 7 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
boolrule.double_equals_trans (cognitive 36) bamboo_engine/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:116— boolrule.double_equals_trans has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, error handling 12, loops 8, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
boolrule.double_equals_trans (cognitive 36) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/utils/boolrule/boolrule.py:116— boolrule.double_equals_trans has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, error handling 12, loops 8, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 22). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
gateway.validate_gateways (cognitive 29) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:306— gateway.validate_gateways has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, loops 11, ternaries 4, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
gateway.validate_gateways (cognitive 29) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:310— gateway.validate_gateways has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, loops 11, ternaries 4, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
connection.validate_graph_connection (cognitive 18) bamboo_engine/validator/connection.py:21— connection.validate_graph_connection has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
connection.validate_graph_connection (cognitive 18) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/connection.py:23— connection.validate_graph_connection has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 3, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
gateway.flowing (cognitive 16) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:428— gateway.flowing has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
gateway.flowing (cognitive 16) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:432— gateway.flowing has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PipelineParser._parse (cyclomatic 43) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/pipeline_parser.py:89— PipelineParser._parse has cyclomatic complexity 43 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
StateMixin.set_state (cyclomatic 34) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:189— StateMixin.set_state has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Engine.execute (cyclomatic 33) bamboo_engine/engine.py:574— Engine.execute has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
schedule.schedule (cyclomatic 25) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/schedule.py:55— schedule.schedule has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Engine.schedule (cyclomatic 23) bamboo_engine/engine.py:892— Engine.schedule has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
BambooDjangoRuntime._prepare (cyclomatic 20) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/runtime.py:249— BambooDjangoRuntime._prepare has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
_Pickler.save_reduce (cyclomatic 19) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:558— _Pickler.save_reduce has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
StatusManager.transit (cyclomatic 18) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/core.py:637— StatusManager.transit has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ServiceActivityHandler.handle (cyclomatic 17) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/handlers/service_activity.py:36— ServiceActivityHandler.handle has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
_Pickler.save_global (cyclomatic 17) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:925— _Pickler.save_global has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
runtime.run_loop (cyclomatic 16) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/runtime.py:40— runtime.run_loop has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 138 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).
LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected depth to be zero at the end of the JSON payload. There is an open JSON object or array that should be closed. Path: $.findings[1] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1185.
PipelineParser._parse (cognitive 85) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/pipeline_parser.py:89— PipelineParser._parse has cognitive complexity 85 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 42, loops 33, ternaries 9, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 38). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Engine.execute (cognitive 74) bamboo_engine/engine.py:574— Engine.execute has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 56, boolean chains 7, loops 6, ternaries 3, error handling 2 (nesting depth added 38). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
schedule.schedule (cognitive 39) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/schedule.py:55— schedule.schedule has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 31, error handling 6, boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
tasks.recursive_collect_components (cognitive 37) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/contrib/statistics/tasks.py:39— tasks.recursive_collect_components has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23, loops 7, ternaries 7 (nesting depth added 26). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
StateMixin.set_state (cognitive 37) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/imp/state.py:189— StateMixin.set_state has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26, boolean chains 11 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
StatusManager.transit (cognitive 32) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/core.py:637— StatusManager.transit has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29, boolean chains 2, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BambooDjangoRuntime._prepare (cognitive 32) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/eri/runtime.py:249— BambooDjangoRuntime._prepare has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 16, if/else 12, boolean chains 2, ternaries 2 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
runtime.run_loop (cognitive 31) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/runtime.py:40— runtime.run_loop has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24, boolean chains 3, error handling 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 16). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ComponentTestMixin.test_component (cognitive 30) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/component_framework/test.py:182— ComponentTestMixin.test_component has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, loops 10, ternaries 4, error handling 2 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
_Pickler.save_reduce (cognitive 26) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:558— _Pickler.save_reduce has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22, boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Engine.schedule (cognitive 23) bamboo_engine/engine.py:892— Engine.schedule has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, boolean chains 5, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 1). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ServiceActivityHandler.handle (cognitive 22) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/handlers/service_activity.py:36— ServiceActivityHandler.handle has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15, boolean chains 4, error handling 3 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
batch_task.benchmark (cognitive 22) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/test/eri_imp_test_use/benchmark/batch_task.py:10— batch_task.benchmark has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, loops 6 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
_Pickler.save_global (cognitive 21) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:925— _Pickler.save_global has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, error handling 3 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
utils._replace_front_end_data_id (cognitive 21) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/utils.py:106— utils._replace_front_end_data_id has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 10, if/else 6, error handling 5 (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
test_gateway.test_match_converge (cognitive 21) tests/validator/test_gateway.py:42— test_gateway.test_match_converge has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 11, if/else 6, error handling 4 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
_Pickler.save (cognitive 20) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:479— _Pickler.save has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17, error handling 2, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
TestStatus.test_transit (cognitive 20) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/tests/engine/models/core/test_status.py:26— TestStatus.test_transit has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 14, if/else 6 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
api.workers (cognitive 19) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/core/api.py:52— api.workers has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, error handling 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
utils._replace_gateway_id (cognitive 19) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/parser/utils.py:180— utils._replace_gateway_id has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 9, if/else 8, boolean chains 1, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
TestStreamValidation.test_match_converge (cognitive 19) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/tests/validators/test_gateway.py:36— TestStreamValidation.test_match_converge has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 11, if/else 6, error handling 2 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
ComponentMeta.__new__ (cognitive 18) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/component_framework/base.py:29— ComponentMeta.__new__ has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, error handling 2, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
PipelineSpec.prune (cognitive 17) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/pipeline.py:38— PipelineSpec.prune has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13, loops 4 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EngineTestCase.join_or_fail (cognitive 17) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/test/pipeline_test_use/tests/base.py:30— EngineTestCase.join_or_fail has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, error handling 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
api.get_pipeline_states (cognitive 16) bamboo_engine/api.py:300— api.get_pipeline_states has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11, loops 5 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
_Pickler.save_tuple (cognitive 16) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:741— _Pickler.save_tuple has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12, loops 3, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ServiceActivityHandlerTestCase.test_handle__execute_return_true_and_do_not_need_schedule (cognitive 16) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/tests/engine/core/handlers/test_service_act_handler.py:519— ServiceActivityHandlerTestCase.test_handle__execute_return_true_and_do_not_need_schedule has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
batch_task.benchmark (cognitive 16) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/test/pipeline_test_use/benchmark/batch_task.py:12— batch_task.benchmark has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, loops 6 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TooManyMethods: _Unpickler runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py:1001— TooManyMethods — 73 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 31 floating ref(s) across 9 workflow file(s), 6 of them mutable BRANCH refs — pin those first. The reusable-workflow ref(s) below are the SAST lens's blind spot — pin these first: `TencentBlueKing/bamboo-engine/.github/workflows/engine_flake8_and_black.yml@master` (.github/workflows/pr_check.yml:9), `TencentBlueKing/bamboo-engine/.github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_flake8_and_black.yml@master` (.github/workflows/pr_check.yml:12), `TencentBlueKing/bamboo-engine/.github/workflows/engine_unittest.yml@master` (.github/workflows/pr_check.yml:16), `TencentBlueKing/bamboo-engine/.github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_unittest.yml@master` (.github/workflows/pr_check.yml:20), `TencentBlueKing/bamboo-engine/.github/workflows/runtime_pipeline_end_to_end_test.yml@master` (.github/workflows/pr_check.yml:24), `TencentBlueKing/bamboo-engine/.github/workflows/pipeline_end_to_end_test.yml@master` (.github/workflows/pr_check.yml:28)
Workflow token permissions not restricted — No workflow declares a `permissions:` block, so every job runs with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope (9 workflow file(s) checked). On a repository whose default is read/write, a compromised action or a malicious pull request inherits write access to code, issues, releases and packages. Declare a least-privilege `permissions:` block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of each workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· Secret passed as a command-line argument · ×1
Secret passed as a command-line argument — 1 CI command(s) pass a credential as a bare command-line argument, where it is visible in the runner's process table to any other process on the host (and to anything that logs a command line): runtime_pipeline_python_package_poetry.yml: poetry config pypi-token.pypi ${{ secrets.PIPELINE_PYPI_TOKEN }}. Pass the credential through the environment instead (an `env:` mapping on the step, read by the tool from its own variable) or on stdin, so it never appears in an argument vector.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:184— bamboo_engine/validator/gateway.py:184-201 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/validators/gateway.py:188-205 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/flow/gateway.py:88— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/flow/gateway.py:88-95 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/flow/gateway.py:133-140 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/var.py:66— runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/var.py:66-71 | runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/core/data/var.py:139-144 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Recommendation — 9 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Largest orphaned file · ×3
Largest orphaned file runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/nr_pickle.py— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file runtime/bamboo-pipeline/pipeline/engine/models/core.py— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file bamboo_engine/engine.py— One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.py) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
Dormant codebase — 139 of 139 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 139 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, PEP 740 attestations via `pypa/gh-action-pypi-publish` under PyPI Trusted Publishing (OIDC) for wheels/sdists) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· No SBOM · ×1
No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`cyclonedx-py` over the resolved Python environment/lockfile, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a Codecov configuration (codecov.yml) and a coverage step in CI (`coverage xml`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.py), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`coverage run -m pytest` then `coverage xml`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene· Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry)) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fcf5d-f1ce-7d86-874f-0e5bb30215a1 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 23 · Warnings: 135 · Recommendations: 9 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 00:41 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.