Refactor templates v2 #9870

evgenyz · 2022-11-24T04:52:01Z

Description:

Replacement for #9835.

Improvement of previous attempt. The template generation is now more abstracted
with Entity-specific code delegated to the new Templatable mix-in.

See individual commits for more information.

Rationale:

This is a preparation for introduction of templated Platfroms/CPEs.

Review Hints:

This PR includes all the changes that were requested in previous PR
Additional refactoring hopefully also solves this problem: Refactor template builder #9835 (review)

github-actions · 2022-11-24T04:53:01Z

Start a new ephemeral environment with changes proposed in this pull request:

Fedora Environment

Oracle Linux 8 Environment

Unify the code and remove duplication. Introduce a basic test for template builder.

Move 'title' attribute to the base class XCCDFEntity. It is a base type's (Item/Entity) element according the specs. Introduce sidekick Templatable class for XCCDFEntities that could be templated. It's a mix-in class that will help in rendering templates for various XCCDFEntities in the future.

Move make_items_product_specific method from Rule into common module as static function along with GLOBAL_REFERENCES (constants). This would allow us to reuse code beyond Rule component. Now Templatable can normalize/productify template variables on its own. Clean up duplicate definition of add_sub_element function.

Clean up template.Builder and delegate entity-specific functions to Templatable. The problem with legacy 'rule_id', 'rule_title' and '_rule_id' template variables is localized in Templatable. Rename LANGUAGES constant, TemplatingLang and TemplateType.XXX in accordance with PEP8 and co. Clean up and decompose methods of template.Builder.

jan-cerny

the CI fail seems legit, please ta a look at the failed tests

ssg/build_yaml.py

jan-cerny · 2022-11-24T10:40:14Z

ssg/entities/common.py

@@ -309,3 +349,85 @@ def update_with(self, rhs):
        updated_refinements = self._subtract_refinements(extended_refinements)
        updated_refinements.update(self.refine_rules)
        self.refine_rules = updated_refinements
+
+
+class Templatable(object):


It would be great to add some doc text here to explain what "Templatable" is.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-24T10:53:10Z

ssg/entities/common.py

+        # TODO: The name _rule_id is a legacy from the era when rule was the only
+        #       context for a template. Preprocessors implicitly depend on this name.
+        #       A better name is '_entity_id' (as in XCCDF Entity).
+        template_vars["_rule_id"] = self.id_


There is a good comment above it but I don't understand why a _rule_id is add here and at the same time a rule_id is add in get_template_context. Both items are set to self.id_ . I have an impression that finally both of these variables will be passed to the template so it seems to be duplicate. Any thoughts?

For some reason all template.py operate with _rule_id and template.oval,ansible,etc along with marcos operate with rule_id.

There seems to be no deliberate decision regarding the initial underscore. The variable has been introduced long ago (see https://github.com/ComplianceAsCode/content/blame/453a1d53dc0e2b129fc3704545264dd076e17889/ssg/templates.py#L359) and the leading underscore was probably supplied as a preemptive measure to prevent overwrites. I would drop the assignment here, and also resort to the underscore-less usage elsewhere. We use short IDs everywhere, there is nothing to fear.

This dictionary element is used in:

shared/templates/audit_rules_privileged_commands/template.py

shared/templates/yamlfile_value/template.py

shared/templates/file_groupowner/template.py

shared/templates/file_owner/template.py

shared/templates/file_permissions/template.py

shared/templates/sysctl/template.py

shared/templates/sebool/template.py

ssg/utils.py

The utils.py parts are also being called from different template.pys.

What is more important templates.Teamplate.preprocess is executed without extra environment (where rule_id and rule_title reside). On top of that _rule_id is transformed into _RULE_ID as the result of this process. It's a bit messy. So, we can't just drop it.

My suggestion is to leave it for another self-contained round of refactoring.

My suggestion is to leave it for another self-contained round of refactoring.

I agree, please don't do this in this PR, we can get to that later, I have created a ticket to track this effort: #9882

jan-cerny · 2022-11-24T10:55:02Z

ssg/templates.py


-    def build_rule(self, rule_id, rule_title, template, langs_to_generate, identifiers,
-                   platforms=None):
+    def build_templatable_lang(self, templatable, lang):


I'd prefer build_lang_for_templatable.

Sure, can do that.

Clean up imports and fix small problems.

evgenyz · 2022-11-24T14:07:32Z

the CI fail seems legit, please ta a look at the failed tests

Fixed.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-24T14:45:31Z

ssg/entities/common.py

+        Returns list of languages that should be generated from a template
+        configuration, controlled by backends.
+        """
+        from ..templates import LANGUAGES


Why is the import here and not at the top?

At some point there was a circular dependency problem. I'll check if it is solved now.

It is still there. Unfortunately in order to solve it I would have to extract Builder from templates.py. It totally makes sense, but it will mess this PR. How about solving it in the next one?

The problem is that Builder wants build_yaml.Rule, Rule wants common, common wants templates. Also I'm open to alternative layout suggestions.

Scratch that. Fixed.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-24T14:46:23Z

ssg/entities/common.py

+    def get_template_backend_langs(self):
+        """
+        Returns list of languages that should be generated from a template
+        configuration, controlled by backends.


Suggested change

configuration, controlled by backends.

configuration, controlled by 'backends' key of the template.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-24T14:49:31Z

ssg/templates.py

+
+    @classmethod
+    def load_template(cls, template_root_directory, name):
+        maybe_template = cls(template_root_directory, name)


Inconsistent nameing variables - here it's template_root_directory but in the constructor it's templates_root_directory with "s" so I think here it should also be templates_root_directory with "s".

Ah, missed this one.

matejak · 2022-11-24T16:03:50Z

ssg/templates.py

+    "kubernetes": TemplatingLang("kubernetes", ".yml",  TemplateType.REMEDIATION, "kubernetes"),
+    "oval": TemplatingLang("oval", ".xml",              TemplateType.CHECK,       "oval"),
+    "puppet": TemplatingLang("puppet", ".pp",           TemplateType.REMEDIATION, "puppet"),
+    "sce-bash": TemplatingLang("sce-bash", ".sh",       TemplateType.REMEDIATION, "sce")


Not suggesting any change, as it is code from before, but isn't it strange that "script check engine" is treated as "remediation"? The template type probably means something else than what it says.

Good point. No idea, but it might be somehow connected to the way we process shell scripts. SCE implementation has a lot of quirks all over the place.

It might be a bug, it's used in _init_lang_output_dirs in the following way:

if lang.template_type == TemplateType.CHECK: output_dir = self.checks_dir else: output_dir = self.remediations_dir

It might be hidden because we don't have any SCE template in our repository.

But let's not change it in this PR.

matejak · 2022-11-24T16:46:00Z

ssg/entities/common.py

+        #       templates and macros even if they are not rendered in a rule context.
+        #       Better name for these variables are 'entity_id' and 'entity_title'.
+        return {
+            "rule_id": self.id_,


You can add entity_id as well, so the transition period can start.

I would rather just rename it in a separate self-contained PR, without any backward-compatibility. We have enough legacy lingering around.

jan-cerny

@evgenyz Thanks for the changes. Now I think that the only thing that remains to be done here before merging is to address the issues reported by CodeClimate. There are 5 of them. I'm fine with waiving the issue about too many arguments in template class constructor. So please fix the congestive complexity in function make_items_product_specific and 3 very long lines.

Better names for templatable-related methods of the Bulder class.

Add/improve documentation. Rearrange funtions. Fix formatting. Remove dependency on templates.LANGUAGES from extract_configured_backend_lang method. This method would now take language dictionary from the caller and filter it based on the template configuration.

Rearrange imports. Fix PEP8 formatting. Fix inconsistent argument name in Template class factory.

Remove redundant check in make_items_product_specific. If anything this will lower the cognitive complexity of the function.

This parameter is an extension to the standard specification: https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig/wiki/EditorConfig-Properties#supported-by-a-limited-number-of-editors The value 99 is in sync with sanity CI configuration for PEP8: setup.cfg: [pycodestyle] max-line-length = 99

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T11:44:14Z

@evgenyz Thanks for the changes.

I just realized that I haven't pushed the branch last time. Can you please review the changes once again?

So please fix the congestive complexity in function make_items_product_specific and 3 very long lines.

Long lines are fixed. But I don't know what could be done with the function. It's complex but there is a reason for that.
I've removed one redundant expression from the if clause, though.

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T11:50:42Z

I've removed one redundant expression from the if clause, though.

And it cut the complexity from 11 to 10. Oh, well.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-25T12:25:00Z

But I don't know what could be done with the function. It's complex but there is a reason for that.

I think that you might silence the warning by extracting the block inside the for loop to a private function.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-25T12:30:52Z

But I don't know what could be done with the function. It's complex but there is a reason for that.

I think that you might silence the warning by extracting the block inside the for loop to a private function.

Another option would be to extract the check condition - eg. move

        if label in items_dict and not allow_overwrites and value != items_dict[label]:
            msg = (
                "There is a product-qualified '{item_q}' item, "
                "but also an unqualified '{item_u}' item "
                "and those two differ in value - "
                "'{value_q}' vs '{value_u}' respectively."
                .format(item_q=full_label, item_u=label,
                        value_q=value, value_u=items_dict[label])
            )
            raise ValueError(msg)

to a new function product_qualified_label_differs

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T12:50:13Z

product_qualified_label_differs

I don't fancy the idea of a function that return nothing but throw an exception (that won't be handled) from time to time just to pleasure some weird algorithm.

Extract shadowing / global refs check from make_items_product_specific. It supposed to lower the cognitive complexity of the function.

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T13:23:20Z

Okay, that will do.

matejak · 2022-11-25T13:28:00Z

I don't fancy the idea of a function that return nothing but throw an exception (that won't be handled) from time to time just to pleasure some weird algorithm.

That's not the case of "weird algorithms". The original sensitivity of CodeClimate has been relaxed already, and the original threshold was anyway above the Clean Code recommendations that we liked.

In this case, the condition could use an explanatory variable, and extracting the whole thing to a method or function could work the same explanatory way. The new function would evaluate the condition, compose the message, and then throw an exception - that's three things, so fine by me.

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T13:35:24Z

the condition could use an explanatory variable

That did not work FYI. It wanted exceptions with messages out of the function.

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T13:41:50Z

That's not the case of "weird algorithms".

So, in your subjective opinion, the complexity of the original function was unbearable (11 of 7 that we consider borderline manageable)?

IMHO the function was longish (because of messages and docs), but quite readable and understandable.

matejak · 2022-11-25T13:44:24Z

I see that the complexity has been handled using different means, so that one is done.

Overall, I think that the PR is a step in the right direction, and it handles the tricky part in a way that is reasonable, so I am fine with merging it whenever @jan-cerny is.

jan-cerny · 2022-11-25T13:47:21Z

@evgenyz take a look at the github pages CI job, it seems to be a problem with the thing that we touched

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T14:08:17Z

That's not the case of "weird algorithms".

It considers

if not allow_overwrites and label in items_dict and value != items_dict[label]:
    ...

more readable than

if not allow_overwrites
    if label in items_dict and value != items_dict[label]:
        ...

and scores 1 penalty point for it.

With that approach and line length of 99 it would force us to do

if not allow_overwrites and label in items_dict and value != items_dict[label]\
   and something_else_pretty_long_and_informative_here():
   ...

which goes completely against common sense.

IMHO.

evgenyz · 2022-11-25T14:25:59Z

@evgenyz take a look at the github pages CI job, it seems to be a problem with the thing that we touched

Uh-oh. So, with the last change I tightened reference "deproductization" procedure and it uncovered a bug in the content.

In apple_os/auditing/service_com_apple_auditd_enabled there are two entries

...
    stigid: AOSX-14-001013
    stigid@ubuntu2004: UBTU-20-010182
...

and the second one is the offender for 2 reasons: 1) it's for Ubuntu 2) it breaks the non-shadowing policy.

My suggestion: fix the bugger (by removing it).

jan-cerny · 2022-11-25T14:36:17Z

yes please!

…td_enabled rule The "stigid@ubuntu2004: UBTU-20-010182" entry is for Ubuntu and it violates not-shadowing policy.

codeclimate · 2022-11-25T15:25:26Z

Code Climate has analyzed commit 85e3553 and detected 1 issue on this pull request.

Here's the issue category breakdown:

Category	Count
Complexity	1

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 75.4% (50% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 48.6% (1.3% change).

View more on Code Climate.

matejak · 2022-11-29T15:28:40Z

ssg/entities/common.py

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
 def make_items_product_specific(items_dict, product_suffix, allow_overwrites=False):
    new_items = dict()
    for full_label, value in items_dict.items():
-        if "@" not in full_label and full_label not in new_items:


This is a modification of condition without any compensation, so no wonder that it may change the behavior of the function, as reported in #9894
new_items is not an empty dict for the whole time, but the items_dict ordering is different between Python2 and Python3, so the loop may behave differently in those interpreters.

And it is the case in that issue - pkgname@rhel7: pam_pkcs11 is supposed to take precedence over pkgname: openssl-pkcs11. What happened probably was that new_items["pkgname"] was set to pam_pkcs11, and it got overwritten by openssl-pkcs11. The condition protected product-qualified items from being overwritten by generic items.

It feels like this case should fall right into https://github.com/evgenyz/content/blob/5c7cf430a1012bf3151872519f7873b99218f5cb/ssg/entities/common.py#L46 instead of being short-circuited.

Otherwise this no-overwrite policy depends on the order of dictionary items (which is not ordered in any way by definition).

Is it formulated anywhere besides the exception message? I can't find anything in the docs. Maybe I don't even understand it to the full extent.

The funny thing is that CodeClimate was right about that method being too cognitively complex. I think (may be wrong though) that

if not full_label.endswith(product_suffix): continue

is triggered in case that there is an override attempt of a product-qualified value by a generic value, so now it looks like to me that the exception is not thrown, but the value also isn't overwritten, so it works fine on Python3.
Anyway, only exhaustive unit-testing could bring sufficient level of confidence, and although we would like that, it's out of scope of this PR. The truth is that removing the second part of that conditional was a mistake, and the best thing to do is to fix it - we all know that anybody can make mistakes, and this one was a very educational one that plenty of people can learn from.

The truth is that it ain't over yet: #9910

if not full_label.endswith(product_suffix): continue

happens after the possible exception.

Python 2 and 3 difference is in the order of items storage/emission. I've reproduced it in a test case using update().

I don't think that the exception happened after this sequence. FTR, the original code can be viewed here:

content/ssg/build_yaml.py

Line 949 in 219ea25

def _make_items_product_specific(self, items_dict, product_suffix, allow_overwrites=False):

The issue #9894 was about product-qualified package, which is definitely not a "global reference". Therefore, the next line if label in items_dict and not allow_overwrites and value != items_dict[label] was one that could trigger an exception, but I don't recall our policy regarding allow_overwrites. That clause probably aims to enforce existence of either only product-qualified specs, or no product-qualified specs at all.
Naming sucks, but at least the commit messages that explain why the function got into that shape are quite solid.

This function has not been used for de-qualifying template variables before refactoring.

evgenyz requested review from jan-cerny and matejak November 24, 2022 04:52

evgenyz added the CPE-AL CPE Applicability Language label Nov 24, 2022

evgenyz mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2022

Refactor template builder #9835

Closed

evgenyz force-pushed the refactor_templates_v2 branch 2 times, most recently from 9903e46 to 4176d64 Compare November 24, 2022 05:12

evgenyz added 4 commits November 24, 2022 06:24

Refactor template builder

f6dfe66

Unify the code and remove duplication. Introduce a basic test for template builder.

evgenyz force-pushed the refactor_templates_v2 branch from 4176d64 to 02cda29 Compare November 24, 2022 05:25

jan-cerny requested changes Nov 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

jan-cerny self-assigned this Nov 24, 2022

jan-cerny added this to the 0.1.66 milestone Nov 24, 2022

jan-cerny added the Infrastructure Our content build system label Nov 24, 2022

Refactor build_yaml

3e0d2c0

Clean up imports and fix small problems.

evgenyz force-pushed the refactor_templates_v2 branch from 02cda29 to 3e0d2c0 Compare November 24, 2022 13:32

jan-cerny reviewed Nov 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

matejak reviewed Nov 24, 2022

View reviewed changes

jan-cerny mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2022

Duplicate key members holding rule ID #9882

Open

jan-cerny requested changes Nov 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

evgenyz added 5 commits November 25, 2022 12:22

Refactor templates

b19366e

Better names for templatable-related methods of the Bulder class.

Refactor templates

35e075b

Rearrange imports. Fix PEP8 formatting. Fix inconsistent argument name in Template class factory.

Refactor entities/common

5c7cf43

Remove redundant check in make_items_product_specific. If anything this will lower the cognitive complexity of the function.

evgenyz force-pushed the refactor_templates_v2 branch from 826a9bf to 306f76e Compare November 25, 2022 13:07

Refactor entities/common

cc7ecd7

Extract shadowing / global refs check from make_items_product_specific. It supposed to lower the cognitive complexity of the function.

evgenyz force-pushed the refactor_templates_v2 branch from 306f76e to cc7ecd7 Compare November 25, 2022 13:19

Fix line length in build_sce.py

24be147

Remove offending stigid from apple_os/auditing/service_com_apple_audi…

85e3553

…td_enabled rule The "stigid@ubuntu2004: UBTU-20-010182" entry is for Ubuntu and it violates not-shadowing policy.

jan-cerny approved these changes Nov 25, 2022

View reviewed changes

jan-cerny merged commit c99a90e into ComplianceAsCode:master Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz deleted the refactor_templates_v2 branch November 25, 2022 18:19

matejak reviewed Nov 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

	configuration, controlled by backends.
	configuration, controlled by 'backends' key of the template.

Refactor templates v2 #9870

Refactor templates v2 #9870

Conversation

evgenyz commented Nov 24, 2022

Description:

Rationale:

Review Hints:

github-actions bot commented Nov 24, 2022

jan-cerny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz Nov 24, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz Nov 24, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz Nov 25, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz commented Nov 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jan-cerny left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

jan-cerny commented Nov 25, 2022

jan-cerny commented Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

matejak commented Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

matejak commented Nov 25, 2022

jan-cerny commented Nov 25, 2022

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022 • edited Loading

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022

jan-cerny commented Nov 25, 2022

codeclimate bot commented Nov 25, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz Nov 29, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz Dec 1, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

evgenyz Nov 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

evgenyz Nov 24, 2022 •

edited

Loading

evgenyz Nov 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

evgenyz commented Nov 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

evgenyz Nov 29, 2022 •

edited

Loading

evgenyz Dec 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading