Add componentNames filter for volatileConfig criteria

[Acepresso]

User description

Add an optional componentNames field to allow filtering volatile config include/exclude rules by component name from ApplicationSnapshot. This allows filtering in scenarios where multiple components share the same image repository.

Example usage:

  volatileConfig:
    exclude:
      - value: "lint.has_failures"
        componentNames: ["component1", "component2"]

** Depends on: conforma/crds#21 to be merged first (updated ECP CRD with the new ComponentNames field).

Ref: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/EC-1513
Assisted-by: Cursor (using claude-4.5-sonnet)

---

PR Type

Enhancement

---

Description

• Add ComponentName field to EvaluationTarget for component-specific filtering

• Implement componentItems map in Criteria to store component-name-based rules

• Update Criteria.get() method to merge component-specific and image-specific rules

• Pass component name through evaluation pipeline to filters and matchers

• Add comprehensive tests for component-based volatile config filtering

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["EvaluationTarget<br/>+ ComponentName"] -->|passes| B["Criteria.get<br/>imageRef, componentName"]
  B -->|merges| C["componentItems<br/>+ imageRef items<br/>+ defaults"]
  C -->|filters| D["FilterResults<br/>with component context"]
  D -->|applies| E["Include/Exclude<br/>Rules"]
  E -->|produces| F["Filtered<br/>Outcomes"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Enhancement	5 files evaluator.go Add ComponentName field to EvaluationTarget struct              +3/-2      criteria.go Implement component-based filtering in Criteria                    +32/-7    conftest_evaluator.go Pass component name through evaluation pipeline                    +9/-8      filters.go Update filter signatures to accept component name                +16/-13  validate.go Extract and pass component name to evaluator                          +4/-1
Tests	4 files criteria_test.go Add comprehensive tests for component filtering                    +615/-31 conftest_evaluator_integration_basic_test.go Add integration test for component-based exclusions            +201/-0  filters_test.go Update filter tests with component name parameter                +5/-5      validate_test.go Add test verifying component name propagation                        +61/-0

---

[qodo-code-review]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
⚪	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: Audit Logging: The new component-based filtering logic and evaluation path do not include any explicit audit logging of filter decisions or component context, which may be acceptable if handled elsewhere but is not visible in the added code. Referred Code // Debug: Print all failures t.Logf("comp1 results: %d outcomes", len(result1)) for i, outcome := range result1 { t.Logf(" Outcome %d: %d failures, %d successes", i, len(outcome.Failures), len(outcome.Successes)) for _, failure := range outcome.Failures { t.Logf(" Failure: %s", failure.Metadata["code"]) } for _, success := range outcome.Successes { t.Logf(" Success: %s", success.Metadata["code"]) } } // Verify check_a is excluded, check_b is not hasCheckA := false hasCheckB := false for _, outcome := range result1 { for _, failure := range outcome.Failures { if codeStr, ok := failure.Metadata["code"].(string); ok { if codeStr == "test.check_a" { hasCheckA = true } ... (clipped 6 lines) Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Log Sensitivity: Debug logs added for skipping results reference entire success/failure objects and codes, which may be acceptable but should be reviewed to ensure no sensitive data is logged at debug level. Referred Code if len(filteredResults) == 0 { log.Debugf("Skipping result success: %#v", success) continue } } else { // Fallback to legacy filtering for backward compatibility if !c.isResultIncluded(success, imageRef, componentName, missingIncludes) { log.Debugf("Skipping result success: %#v", success) continue Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
Update

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[qodo-code-review]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
High-level	Component filtering is not implemented for all filter types The component-based filtering logic is missing from the ECPolicyResolver, which handles pipeline intention filtering. To fix this, update the ResolvePolicy method and related functions in filters.go to accept and utilize the componentName. Examples: internal/evaluator/filters.go [522-524] func (r *ECPolicyResolver) ResolvePolicy(rules policyRules, target string) PolicyResolutionResult { return r.baseResolvePolicy(rules, target, r.processPackage) } internal/evaluator/filters.go [1033-1035] if ecResolver, ok := f.policyResolver.(*ECPolicyResolver); ok { // Use policy resolution for ECPolicyResolver to handle pipeline intentions policyResolution := ecResolver.ResolvePolicy(rules, imageRef) Solution Walkthrough: Before: // internal/evaluator/filters.go func (r *ECPolicyResolver) ResolvePolicy(rules policyRules, target string) PolicyResolutionResult { // componentName is not available here return r.baseResolvePolicy(rules, target, r.processPackage) } func (r *basePolicyResolver) baseResolvePolicy(rules policyRules, target string, ...) PolicyResolutionResult { // ... // componentName is hardcoded to "" for _, include := range r.include.get(target, "") { // ... } // ... } After: // internal/evaluator/filters.go func (r *ECPolicyResolver) ResolvePolicy(rules policyRules, imageRef, componentName string) PolicyResolutionResult { // componentName is now available return r.baseResolvePolicy(rules, imageRef, componentName, r.processPackage) } func (r *basePolicyResolver) baseResolvePolicy(rules policyRules, imageRef, componentName string, ...) PolicyResolutionResult { // ... // componentName is now passed through for _, include := range r.include.get(imageRef, componentName) { // ... } // ... } Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a significant flaw where the new component-based filtering is not implemented for the ECPolicyResolver path, causing the feature to fail silently when pipeline intentions are used.	High
Possible issue	Apply component criteria on invalid image Modify the get function to prevent an early return when imageRef parsing fails. This ensures that component-specific and default criteria are still applied even if the image reference is invalid. internal/evaluator/criteria.go [82-113] func (c *Criteria) get(imageRef string, componentName string) []string { + var items []string + ref, err := name.ParseReference(imageRef) if err != nil { log.Debugf("error parsing target image url: %q", imageRef) - // Return only global defaults if image ref is invalid - return c.defaultItems - } + } else { + // Collect keys to look up: always the repository name, + // and if available, the digest string. + keys := []string{ref.Context().Name()} + if digestRef, ok := ref.(name.Digest); ok { + keys = append(keys, digestRef.DigestStr()) + } else { + log.Debugf("no digest found for reference: %q", ref) + } - // Collect keys to look up: always the repository name, - // and if available, the digest string. - keys := []string{ref.Context().Name()} - if digestRef, ok := ref.(name.Digest); ok { - keys = append(keys, digestRef.DigestStr()) - } else { - log.Debugf("no digest found for reference: %q", ref) - } - - var items []string - for _, k := range keys { - items = append(items, c.getWithKey(k)...) + for _, k := range keys { + items = append(items, c.getWithKey(k)...) + } } // Add component-specific items if component name is provided if componentName != "" { if componentItems, ok := c.componentItems[componentName]; ok { items = append(items, componentItems...) } } // Add any exceptions that pertain to all images. return append(items, c.defaultItems...) } Apply / Chat Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a logic flaw in the new get function where an invalid imageRef causes an early return, skipping the newly added component-specific criteria. This fix is important for ensuring component-based rules are applied consistently, even with image parsing errors.	Medium
Update

[Acepresso]

The CI tests should pass once the dependent PR that updates the CRD is merged.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Flag	Coverage Δ
acceptance	55.80% <57.14%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
generative	18.97% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
integration	28.48% <68.57%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
unit	67.73% <94.28%> (+0.12%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
internal/evaluator/conftest_evaluator.go	88.65% <100.00%> (+1.54%)	⬆️
internal/evaluator/criteria.go	96.70% <100.00%> (+1.76%)	⬆️
internal/evaluator/filters.go	82.63% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/image/validate.go	70.14% <100.00%> (+0.45%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Acepresso]

Rebased and pushed fixes to address the reduction of code coverage.

[st3penta]

lgtm

[simonbaird]

Lgtm.