Fix tool records giving path relative to base path.

[CTY-git]

PR Checklist

• The commit message follows our guidelines: Code of conduct
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
• Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
• Include PR in release notes?

PR Type

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Refactoring
• Build /CI
• Documentation
• Others

What is the current behavior?

Currently paths are given relative to base_path

Issue Number: N/A

What is the new behavior?

paths will be given relative to working directory instead.

Other information

[patched-admin]

The pull request review identifies several potential issues and confirms adherence to coding standards. It highlights the potential bugs associated with changes to github.head_ref and abs_path, advising checks to ensure github.ref_name behaves as expected outside PR contexts to prevent unintended concurrency groups, and that paths are handled correctly to maintain existing functionality. While no new security vulnerabilities were found, it stresses caution in handling paths to avoid path traversal vulnerabilities and suggests verifying github.ref_name for security alignment. Coding standards appear largely upheld, but it notes potential conflicts with expected data types in tool_records and emphasizes ensuring dictionary key usage aligns with standards to prevent exceptions. Overall, the review advises thorough testing and verification to mitigate potential bugs and security concerns.

---

• File changed: .github/workflows/test.yml
  1. Potential Bugs:
  • The change from github.head_ref to github.head_ref || github.ref_name might have unintended consequences if github.ref_name is not equivalent to github.head_ref. For instance, in cases where the workflow is triggered by events not related to pull requests (github.head_ref is only set for PRs), github.ref_name will return a value leading to possibly unexpected concurrency groups.

2. Coding Standards:

   • No deviations from coding standards are detected in the provided diff.

3. Security Vulnerabilities:

   • No new security vulnerabilities introduced in the modification. However, ensure that github.ref_name is outputting expected values to avoid any security misconfigurations, especially when dealing with branch names that could contain special characters or controlled values.

• File changed: patchwork/common/tools/code_edit_tools.py
  1. Potential Bug:
  • The change from abs_path.relative_to(self.repo_path) to abs_path when adding to self.modified_files may introduce issues if abs_path is not always relative or if consumers of self.modified_files expect paths relative to self.repo_path. This change should be double-checked to ensure it doesn't break any existing functionality or expectations.

2. Security Vulnerability Check:

   • There are no apparent new security vulnerabilities introduced in the code change based solely on this diff. However, ensuring paths are used correctly is critical for avoiding path traversal vulnerabilities.

3. Adherence to Coding Standards:

   • Removing the conversion to str for file paths in the tool_records return value might conflict with coding standards if other parts of the code or consumers expect these to be strings rather than Path objects. This change should be assessed in the context of how this data structure is used throughout the codebase.

• File changed: patchwork/steps/FixIssue/FixIssue.py
  1. Potential Bugs:
  • The code attempts to use Path.relative_to method, which will raise a ValueError if any of the paths in tool.tool_records["modified_files"] are not sub-paths of the current working directory. Ensure that tool.tool_records["modified_files"] only contains sub-paths of the working directory or include a check to handle such scenarios.

2. Security Vulnerabilities:

   • There are no obvious security vulnerabilities in the modified code snippet. However, be cautious of any assumptions about file paths, especially when dealing with relative paths, to avoid potential path traversal issues inadvertently.

3. Coding Standards:

   • The code modifications seem consistent with common Python practices and the surrounding code structure. However, ensure that any usage of dictionary keys (e.g., tool.tool_records["modified_files"]) aligns with your team's coding standards or considers potential exceptions if the key does not exist.