[Buganizer ID: 470173558] Execution Failed: Scripts - EmailUtilities_Analyze Headers #411
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @jayapradha-p, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request enhances the robustness of the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
|
❌ Marketplace Validation Failed Click to view the full reportValidation Report🧩 IntegrationsPre-Build Stageemail_utilities
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request addresses a bug where the EmailUtilities_Analyze Headers script fails. The fix involves adding a try-except block to handle a ValueError from checkdmarc.check_domains and retrying with TLS disabled.
My review focuses on improving the robustness of the error handling and ensuring adherence to the repository's style guide.
Key Feedback:
- Error Handling: The new
exceptblock should also handle potential failures during the retry to prevent the script from crashing. I've suggested adding anothertry-exceptblock with logging. This aligns with the style guide's principle of production-ready code with resilient error handling (lines 16-17). - Missing Unit Tests: The style guide (lines 131-132) requires that bug fixes include corresponding unit tests. This PR is missing a test to validate the new fallback logic. Please add a unit test that mocks
checkdmarc.check_domainsto raise aValueErrorand asserts that the retry logic is correctly triggered. - JSON Example Naming: The style guide (lines 157-158) specifies a naming convention for JSON example files (
action_name_json_example.json). The existing fileAnalyzeHeaders_JsonResult_example.jsonshould be renamed toAnalyzeHeaders_json_example.jsonto align with the convention.
I've provided a specific comment in the code for the error handling improvement.
| try: | ||
| domain_check = checkdmarc.check_domains( | ||
| [result["FromDomain"]], | ||
| include_tag_descriptions=True, | ||
| ) | ||
| except ValueError: | ||
| domain_check = checkdmarc.check_domains( | ||
| [result["FromDomain"]], | ||
| include_tag_descriptions=True, | ||
| skip_tls=True, | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current implementation handles the initial ValueError but doesn't account for a potential failure in the fallback call. If the second checkdmarc.check_domains call also raises a ValueError, the script will crash. Additionally, there's an opportunity to add logging for better observability. This suggestion adds more robust error handling and logging, and initializes domain_check to a safe default in case of complete failure.
try:
domain_check = checkdmarc.check_domains([result["FromDomain"]], include_tag_descriptions=True)
except ValueError:
siemplify.LOGGER.warning(f"DMARC check for {result['FromDomain']} failed, retrying with skip_tls=True.")
try:
domain_check = checkdmarc.check_domains([result["FromDomain"]], include_tag_descriptions=True, skip_tls=True)
except ValueError as e:
siemplify.LOGGER.error(f"DMARC check for {result['FromDomain']} failed again with skip_tls=True: {e}")
domain_check = {}References
- The style guide (lines 16-17) requires code to be resilient with proactive error handling and structured logging. The current implementation could crash if the retry fails and lacks logging. (link)
1 participant
Title (Please follow the convention below)
Please use a clear and concise title that summarizes your changes.
If this PR is related to an internal Buganizer ticket, please include its ID at the beginning.
Convention:
[Optional Buganizer ID: 123456789] Short, descriptive title of changesExamples:
Fix: Resolve issue with API endpoint returning 500 error[Buganizer ID: 987654321] Feature: Add support for custom data typesDocs: Update README with installation instructionsDescription
Please provide a detailed description of your changes. This helps reviewers understand your work and its context.
What problem does this PR solve?
(e.g., "Fixes a bug where X was happening," "Implements feature Y to allow Z," "Improves performance of function A.")
How does this PR solve the problem?
(e.g., "Modified algorithm in
src/foo.js," "Added new componentBar.vue," "Updated dependencybazto version 1.2.3.")Any other relevant information (e.g., design choices, tradeoffs, known issues):
(e.g., "Chose approach A over B due to performance considerations," "This change might affect X in certain edge cases," "Requires manual migration steps for existing users.")
Checklist:
Please ensure you have completed the following items before submitting your PR.
This helps us review your contribution faster and more efficiently.
General Checks:
Open-Source Specific Checks:
For Google Team Members and Reviewers Only:
Screenshots (If Applicable)
If your changes involve UI or visual elements, please include screenshots or GIFs here.
Ensure any sensitive data is redacted or generalized.
Further Comments / Questions
Any additional comments, questions, or areas where you'd like specific feedback.