Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Modify S6327: Improve the recommended fix #4543

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 27, 2024

Conversation

loris-s-sonarsource
Copy link
Contributor

Review

A dedicated reviewer checked the rule description successfully for:

  • logical errors and incorrect information
  • information gaps and missing content
  • text style and tone
  • PR summary and labels follow the guidelines

It's recommended to encrypt SNS topics that contain sensitive information. Encryption and decryption are handled transparently by SNS, so no further modifications to the application are necessary.
It is recommended to encrypt SNS topics that contain sensitive information.

To do so, create a master key and affect the SNS topic to it. Without a master

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is "affect" the right word here?

It is recommended to encrypt SNS topics that contain sensitive information.

To do so, create a master key and affect the SNS topic to it. Without a master
key, the SNS topic is not encrypted by default.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using the negative version is usually a bit harder to understand than the positive version: "With a master key, the SNS topic is encrypted by default".

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed it, the goal was to say that by default no encryption applied but I am starting to think this sentence, at this location could be confusing. I replaced it with notable information instead

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would recommend a little bit of rewording.

Copy link

Quality Gate passed Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-tools'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

Copy link

Quality Gate passed Quality Gate passed for 'rspec-frontend'

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarQube

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@loris-s-sonarsource loris-s-sonarsource merged commit d046613 into master Nov 27, 2024
12 checks passed
@loris-s-sonarsource loris-s-sonarsource deleted the loris/S6327/rspec-improvement branch November 27, 2024 11:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants