Read 2026-10-28
fecshop/yii2_fecshop: technical due diligence, read from its repository
What Borehole read in fecshop/yii2_fecshop's code and history at 19c5cb8: its licence, security advisories, releases, review practice, tests, dependencies and operations. Every finding cites the file and line it rests on. The full report also covers the team and asks the questions the code cannot answer.
| Dimension | Rating |
|---|---|
| Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance | strong |
| Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity | adequate |
| Product & Engineering Maturity | not assessable |
| Security & Reliability Posture | adequate |
| Observability & Operations | not assessable |
| Fit with the Acquirer | not assessable |
What the repository says
LICENSE: Relicensed: MIT → proprietary (2016-07-28) → BSD-3-Clause (2017-05-09) → proprietary (2018-06-27) → BSD-3-Clause (2021-01-29)
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance
strongapp/apphtml5/theme/base/html5/assets/js/sm-city-picker.js is 13,422 lines, 114× this codebase's median file
adequateThe median source file here is 117 lines. 13 files exceed 1,170 lines, the largest being 13,422. Size is not a defect on its own — some problems genuinely live in one place — but these are where merge conflicts, review fatigue and single-owner knowledge concentrate, and they are the first thing that slows an inheriting engineer down.
app/apphtml5/theme/base/html5/assets/js/sm-city-picker.js:1 — 13,422 lines (114× median) |
app/apphtml5/theme/base/html5/assets/js/sm.js:1 — 8,103 lines (69× median) |
app/apphtml5/theme/base/html5/assets/js/sm-extend.js:1 — 3,377 lines (28× median) |
lib/wxpay/lib/WxPay.Data.php:1 — 2,985 lines (25× median) |
app/appfront/theme/base/front/assets/fancybox/jquery.fancybox.js:1 — 2,019 lines (17× median) |
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity
adequateLittle of the recent change carries a trace of review
adequateIn the all history, 78 of 2,068 commits (3.8%) carry any trace of review: a merge, a pull-request reference, a Reviewed-by or Reviewed-on trailer, a Closes/Fixes reference, a maintainer's sign-off on someone else's change, or a change applied by someone other than its author. That is low but not absent. Review may happen in a workflow this history does not record; a buyer should ask how change is approved before it ships.
| 78 of 2,068 commits in the all history carry review evidence; 3.8% across all 2,068 |
Tests cover a thin slice of the codebase
adequate1 test files against 1,924 source files (0.1%). This does not measure whether the tests are good, only whether enough of them exist for the codebase to be changed safely by someone who did not write it — which is exactly the situation after an acquisition.
| 1 test files / 1,924 source files |
Almost no process scaffolding exists in the repository
adequateOf five ordinary markers — CI workflows, CODEOWNERS, a pull-request template, pre-commit hooks, contribution guidance — 1 is present: contribution guidance. Branch protection itself is a GitHub setting rather than a file, so this is a reading of proxies and not of the rules themselves. What it does establish is that the process is not written down anywhere a new engineer would find it.
| 1 of 5 markers present across 2,134 tracked files |
Product & Engineering Maturity
not assessableNot rated: only 7 of 19 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
Security & Reliability Posture
adequate1 credential-shaped string committed to the tree
adequateMatches for private key block appear in tracked files outside test and fixture paths. They stay in the history even after they leave the tree, so what matters is whether each was rotated. The code cannot tell whether any of them is live, and that decides whether this matters: none sits in production configuration, and none is in a format its provider keeps for live keys. Is any of these live? Show that each was rotated after it was committed, and when.
| private key block pattern matched |
116 deserialisers that can run code
adequate116 places read data with a deserialiser that executes what it reads (PHP `unserialize`). That is safe on data the system wrote itself and remote code execution on anything else. Ask where each one's input comes from.
app/appadmin/modules/Catalog/block/productattr/Manageredit.php:40 — code-executing deserialiser |
app/appadmin/modules/Catalog/block/productattrgroup/Manageredit.php:48 — code-executing deserialiser |
app/appadmin/modules/Config/block/appfrontaccount/Manager.php:58 — code-executing deserialiser |
Relicensed: MIT → proprietary (2016-07-28) → BSD-3-Clause (2017-05-09) → proprietary (2018-06-27) → BSD-3-Clause (2021-01-29)
adequateThe root licence changed 4 time(s). Code taken under earlier terms stays under them; check which terms any fork or customer relied on.
Observability & Operations
not assessableNot rated: only 5 of 16 checks could reach a conclusion here; the rest do not apply to this repository or could not read it.
Fit with the Acquirer
not assessableNot rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.
Read more, or read your own
The full report on fecshop/yii2_fecshop: every dimension, the questions for the room, and the audit log.
Survey a repository: free on public repositories. Private code is read on your own machine by a collector whose source you can read first.