🌱 Refactor checks to use interface and update tests

[naveensrinivasan]

• Refactor BinaryArtifacts check to use an interface
• Update tests to reflect the new BinaryArtifactsCheck interface
• Replace checks.BinaryArtifacts calls with b.RunCheck calls
• Add a RunCheck function to the Check interface

Eventually, move all of them to the same interface. This is the first PR.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

(Is it a bug fix, feature, docs update, something else?)

• PR title follows the guidelines defined in our pull request documentation

What is the current behavior?

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**

• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes/features)

Which issue(s) this PR fixes

Special notes for your reviewer

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

For user-facing changes, please add a concise, human-readable release note to
the release-note

(In particular, describe what changes users might need to make in their
application as a result of this pull request.)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3055 (150b6ae) into main (e0a6d15) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 47.36%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3055      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   63.42%   63.44%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         166      166              
  Lines       12461    12647     +186     
==========================================
+ Hits         7904     8024     +120     
- Misses       4109     4176      +67     
+ Partials      448      447       -1     

[spencerschrock]

Can you speak to the motivation about moving checks to an interface?

[naveensrinivasan]

Can you speak to the motivation about moving checks to an interface?

The goal is a plugin interface for checks to allow users to run their own checks.

Provide a framework for running custom checks are to be run within the Scorecard.

By enabling this, we could let users write their custom checks and integrate them with the scorecard.

[spencerschrock]

I think the contents of the PR are in a good state, but I think this is something big enough that there should be some thought put in before any code. At the very least around the interface.

[naveensrinivasan]

I think the contents of the PR are in a good state, but I think this is something big enough that there should be some thought put in before any code. At the very least around the interface.

Do you think we need additional reviewers? Can you be specific?

[naveensrinivasan]

I think the contents of the PR are in a good state, but I think this is something big enough that there should be some thought put in before any code. At the very least around the interface.

Do you think we need additional reviewers? Can you be specific?

Moved it to an internal package till it is ready for primetime.

[spencerschrock]

I think the contents of the PR are in a good state, but I think this is something big enough that there should be some thought put in before any code. At the very least around the interface.

Do you think we need additional reviewers? Can you be specific?

Moved it to an internal package till it is ready for primetime.

Should we close this given the approach in #3095?

[naveensrinivasan]

I think the contents of the PR are in a good state, but I think this is something big enough that there should be some thought put in before any code. At the very least around the interface.

Do you think we need additional reviewers? Can you be specific?

Moved it to an internal package till it is ready for primetime.

Should we close this given the approach in #3095?

Agreed. Thanks