@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@double-beep I am aware of 39 blacklist managers. Currently in this room: double-beep, user58, tripleee, DavidPostill, Makyen, bertieb, Nisse Engström, John Dvorak. Not currently in this room: iBug, doppelgreener, WELZ, CalvT, A J, a spaghetto, NobodyNada, Thomas Ward, Ferrybig, angussidney, K.Dᴀᴠɪs, Suraj Rao, Zoe the transgirl, Ashish Ahuja, mag, ArtOfCode, Shree, Erik the Outgolfer, micsthepick, Byte Commander, ProgramFOX, paper1111, Henders, Tetsuya Yamamoto, Andy, bwDraco, Undo, Glorfindel, thesecretmaster, Machavity, Paul Stenne.
@double-beep You can do a "review" of the code from the "Files Changed" tabs of a PR. In the review, you can add a comment and select one of three action-options: "Comment", "Approve", or "Request changes". If you choose "Approve", then it's counted as an approval by PullApprove.
@tripleee It used to be that a listed user had to add a comment to the PR like "!!/approve", which would approve it on PullApprove. As I understand it, that would usually trigger the PR to be merged, but doing so was unreliable. I believe that is still in place and can be done, but is still unreliable, both for actually triggering the attempt and not resolving merge conflicts. Adding the !!/approve command to SD was a way to make the process easier and more reliable.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, luncheon meat detected, no whitespace in body, no whitespace in title, potentially bad keyword in title (295): fghfghfghfghfghfhfghj ✏️ by Surendiran Subramanian on stackoverflow.com
@double-beep Yes, my earlier comment explained how I approved this one with PullApprove (i.e. I submitted a GitHub review, because you requested one from me, with it marked as "approve", which also approves it with PullApprove). An additional alternative for PullApprove approval is that it's also possible to go to PullApprove's website and approve or reject something using the UI on their website, which doesn't add an explicit comment on GitHub, IIRC (I did not do so in this case).
@Andy I last downloaded a copy of the MS and Redis backup dumps in mid-September. The MS backup was 100MB. The Redis backup was 147MB. Both of those files are compressed. Both are incomplete with confidential info not included.
@Machavity That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Jenayah Indeterminate. The code is not a direct copy, but appears to be a modification of the code in the question you've linked. I'd probably first ask the user to edit in attribution for the code they appear to have copied and modified. What to do from there will depend on how the user reacts.
@iBug Do you want that to replace your old key, or just be added?
@iBug I added the SSH key you provided to the SmokeDetector account, but not as a deploy key for the repository. Basically, it appears there have generally been SSH keys added to the SD account for those who are running SD instances, if they want them. However, that's not been the case for deploy keys in the repository.
I'm interested to know what needs an SSH key at this point, as I thought I changed SD's code such that the credentials in the config file are preferentially used in all cases where authorization is needed for git operations on GitHub. Did I miss something?
@double-beep I'm aware (thanks though), but as my phone's autocorrect can be messy sometimes, I'd rather have confirmation the feedback went through :)
I recently saw a spam post (deleted) and flagged it for redaction as it contained a phone number, full name and email.
The flag got declined with this message:
declined - its spam, no need to redact
In my opinion, it’s still personal information and still needs to be redacted. We also don’...
I recently flagged this spam post (visible to 10k+ users) with a in need of moderator intervention flag with the following message:
Redact post history please
It was declined with the following message:
declined - its spam, no need to redact
We want to remove all advertising. The post...
@Makyen That pattern looks like it's already caught by Pattern-matching email in body and Pattern-matching email in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
I recently saw a spam post (deleted) and flagged it for redaction as it contained a phone number, full name and email.
The flag got declined with this message:
declined - its spam, no need to redact
In my opinion, it’s still personal information and still needs to be redacted. We also don’...
