Enhance input validation in ShieldsIo class

[guibranco]

Description

• Improved input validation in the ShieldsIo class to handle null values.
• Added a return for empty input in the encodeShieldsIoParameters method.
• Updated badge generation logic to check for null instead of empty values.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Enhancement	ShieldsIo.php Enhance input validation in ShieldsIo class                            src/ShieldsIo.php Added a check for empty input in encodeShieldsIoParameters. Updated conditions to check for null instead of using empty. Improved parameter validation for badge generation. +10/-6

[penify-dev]

PR Review 🔍

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	2, because the changes are straightforward and primarily involve input validation improvements without introducing complex logic.
🧪 Relevant tests	No
⚡ Possible issues	No
🔒 Security concerns	No

[deepsource-io]

Here's the code health analysis summary for commits 8a380b6..9570a59. View details on DeepSource ↗.

Analysis Summary

Analyzer	Status	Summary	Link
Test coverage	✅ Success		View Check ↗
SQL	✅ Success		View Check ↗
Secrets	✅ Success		View Check ↗
PHP	✅ Success		View Check ↗
Docker	✅ Success		View Check ↗

Code Coverage Report

Metric	Aggregate	Php
Branch Coverage	100%	100%
Composite Coverage	95.7% (down 0.1% from main)	95.7% (down 0.1% from main)
Line Coverage	95.7% (down 0.1% from main)	95.7% (down 0.1% from main)

---

💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.

[penify-dev]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Category	Suggestion	Score
Possible bug	Add type checking to prevent errors when non-string inputs are passed Ensure that the encodeShieldsIoParameters function handles cases where the input might not be a string, to avoid potential type errors. src/ShieldsIo.php [13] +if (!is_string($input)) { + return ''; +} $input = str_replace("_", "__", $input); Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 Why: This suggestion addresses a potential bug by adding type checking, which is crucial for preventing runtime errors when non-string inputs are passed.	9
Performance	Reduce redundancy by consolidating parameter checks into a loop Consider using a single check for all parameters in generateBadgeUrl to reduce redundancy and improve readability. src/ShieldsIo.php [26-50] -if (isset($label) && $label !== null) { -if (isset($content) && $content !== null) { -if (isset($color) && $color !== null) { -if (isset($style) && $style !== null) { -if (isset($labelColor) && $labelColor !== null) { -if (isset($logo) && $logo !== null) { +foreach (['label', 'content', 'color', 'style', 'labelColor', 'logo'] as $param) { + if (!empty($$param)) { + $badge[] = $$param; + } +} Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: This suggestion significantly enhances code readability and reduces redundancy, making it a valuable improvement to the code structure.	8
Possible issue	Ensure consistent return type for empty input in the parameter encoding function The check for empty input in the encodeShieldsIoParameters function should return an empty string instead of returning the input directly, to ensure consistent output type. src/ShieldsIo.php [9-11] if (empty($input)) { - return $input; + return ''; } Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: While returning an empty string can ensure consistent output type, the current implementation may be acceptable depending on the context of usage. This suggestion improves clarity but isn't critical.	7
Maintainability	Simplify null checks by using a more concise condition The checks for null values in the generateBadgeUrl function could be simplified by using the !empty() function, which checks for both null and empty string values. src/ShieldsIo.php [26] -if (isset($label) && $label !== null) { +if (!empty($label) && isset($label)) { Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 Why: This suggestion improves code readability and maintainability by simplifying the checks, but it does not address a major issue.	6

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ -0.05% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 100.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (8a380b6)	236	226	95.76%
Head commit (9570a59)	233 (-3)	223 (-3)	95.71% (-0.05%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#215)	13	13	100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.59%. Comparing base (8a380b6) to head (9570a59).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #215      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.65%   95.59%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         230      227       -3     
==========================================
- Hits          220      217       -3     
  Misses         10       10              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked!

Scan results:

11:01PM INF scanning for exposed secrets...
11:01PM INF 150 commits scanned.
11:01PM INF scan completed in 412ms
11:01PM INF no leaks found

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud