Borehole · Project · free tier
frappe/lms
Free reading: not for reliance
37bc1fb · 8,055 commits · 1,725 files
Read 2026-11-03

frappe/lms: technical due diligence, read from its repository

What Borehole read in frappe/lms's code and history at 37bc1fb: 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.

DimensionRating
Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenancestrong
Engineering Process & SDLC Maturitystrong
Product & Engineering Maturitystrong
Security & Reliability Posturestrong
Observability & Operationsadequate
Fit with the Acquirernot assessable

What the repository says

  • Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

Architecture & Codebase — including AI provenance

strong
01.3

Commit messages are templated rather than written

adequate

38% of commit subjects are exact repeats of another subject, and subject length varies by only 17.4 characters. A log written by someone explaining their reasoning to a future reader does not look like this. The log is therefore weak evidence of intent, whatever the code is like.

Evidence
116× 'chore: Persian translations'
108× 'chore: update POT file'
103× 'chore: Bosnian translations'
01.6

lms/lms/api.py is 4,628 lines, 57× this codebase's median file

adequate

The median source file here is 80 lines. 8 files exceed 1,000 lines, the largest being 4,628. 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.

Evidence
lms/lms/api.py:1 — 4,628 lines (57× median)
lms/lms/utils.py:1 — 4,230 lines (52× median)
frontend/src/components/Quiz.vue:1 — 1,901 lines (23× median)
lms/lms/permissions.py:1 — 1,705 lines (21× median)
frontend/src/pages/Lesson.vue:1 — 1,403 lines (17× median)

Engineering Process & SDLC Maturity

strong
02.16

Tests are retried until they pass

adequate

The suite is configured to retry failing tests (playwright.config.ts). A retry turns a flaky test green without saying why it failed, so a green build means the tests passed eventually. Ask how many retries a typical run needs, and which tests need them.

Evidence
playwright.config.ts:15 — test retry

Product & Engineering Maturity

strong
04.5

Effort is shifting from building to rewriting

adequate

Deleted lines per line added rose from 0.24 to 0.91 between the first and second halves of this history. Rework is normal and often healthy, but a rising ratio means an increasing share of the team's time is spent replacing code that already exists rather than building what does not. Whether that is deliberate repayment or churn is a question for the team.

Evidence
first half 0.24, second half 0.91 (split 2023-12-24)
04.62

Releases are cut from another branch than the one surveyed

adequate

The newest release, v2.68.0, is not on the branch this survey read; the newest release on it is v2.45.2. The shipped product may differ from what this report describes. Survey the release branch too.

Evidence
tag v2.68.0

Security & Reliability Posture

strong
05.27

The build runs third-party code it does not pin

adequate

10 third-party CI actions are referenced by a tag or branch rather than a commit, so they run whatever that tag points to on the day. Tags have been moved to malicious commits in real supply-chain attacks, and a piped script is whatever the server returns that minute. Pinning to a commit is the fix, and it is small.

Evidence
.github/workflows/assets.yml:28 — action pinned by tag
.github/workflows/assets.yml:41 — action pinned by tag
05.13

5 outbound calls can wait forever

adequate

5 HTTP calls use a client with no timeout (Python `requests` without `timeout=`, or Go's default client). When a dependency slows down, each one holds a worker until the connection gives up, and enough of them take the service down with the dependency.

Evidence
lms/lms/doctype/lms_batch/lms_batch.py:528 — outbound call without a timeout
lms/lms/doctype/lms_live_class/lms_live_class.py:544 — outbound call without a timeout
lms/lms/utils.py:1355 — outbound call without a timeout
05.26

40 locked dependencies have published vulnerabilities, 65 high or critical

adequate

40 of 912 locked dependencies match 149 published advisories in OSV, 65 of them rated high or critical. A lockfile says which version is installed, not whether the flawed code is reachable from this product, so each needs a look. Most are fixed by an upgrade, and the advisory names the version. This lockfile pins development tools alongside what ships and does not say which is which, so some of these may never reach a user.

Evidence
frontend/yarn.lock — dompurify 3.4.9: GHSA-cg2g-xh64-v4q7 (critical), fixed in 3.4.17
frontend/yarn.lock — @babel/plugin-transform-modules-systemjs 7.29.0: GHSA-fv7c-fp4j-7gwp (high), fixed in 7.29.4
frontend/yarn.lock — @tiptap/core 3.26.1: GHSA-j95f-988m-3j2f (high), fixed in 3.30.5
05.65

31 advisories against this project in the last 24 months, 3 high or critical

adequate

The newest was published on 2026-09-18. A project that publishes advisories is telling its users about its fixes, and the count and pace say how much security work it carries. Whether 19 of them are fixed in the code you ship could not be told from this history: its version is only known to be at least 2.45.2. Answer lives in: the release you run, set against each fixed version. GHSA-3mq2-3c8v-m92j (critical) is fixed in the surveyed commit; which release carries it cannot be told from this history, which does not place the release users run. Answer lives in: the version you run. The record is incomplete: NVD: 502 records name lms with nothing tying them to this repository (CVE-2008-4777, CVE-2013-6787, CVE-2015-9540, …).

Evidence
2026-09-18: GHSA-jf2p-m4wh-hv3x (high), fixed in 2.56.0: Unauthorised access to restricted content due to missing validation
2026-09-18: GHSA-6xm2-ww9w-65m8 (moderate), fixed in 2.59.0: Unauthorised modification of grading data due to missing validation
2026-09-16: GHSA-xvj8-v87h-68vw (moderate), fixed in 2.61.0: Unauthorised modification of data due to missing validation
2026-09-16: GHSA-ccm8-xq6c-9fmj (moderate), fixed in 2.61.0: Unauthorised disclosure of user information due to missing validation
2026-08-18: GHSA-p37x-f9gw-xp5j (moderate), fixed in >= 2.52.0: Stored XSS in Frappe Learning

Observability & Operations

adequate
06.2

No structured logging library is in use

adequate

Nothing references a structured logging library. Logs that are written to be read by a person are not searchable by a machine, which means incident response here is proportional to how well someone remembers the codebase rather than to what the tooling can find.

Evidence
searched 1,532 files for 10 structured logging libraries; 0 matched
06.8

One request cannot be followed through the logs

adequate

Nothing in the service carries a request or correlation id, and there is no tracing. When a customer reports a failure, the log lines that belong to their request cannot be picked out from everyone else's.

Evidence
no request id, correlation id or tracing found
06.9

No error reporter is wired in

adequate

Nothing in the service initialises an error reporter (Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, Honeybadger or an APM agent). An exception in production reaches a person only if someone is reading the logs, which usually means a customer reports it first.

Evidence
no error reporter initialised
06.18

1 of 3 deployed images carry no version, or `latest`

adequate

1 images in the deployment configuration are named without a version or as `latest`. A redeploy can change the software without a commit, a rollback has nothing to roll back to, and nobody can say from the repository what is running.

Evidence
docker/docker-compose.yml:20 — image without a version

Fit with the Acquirer

not assessable

Not rated: structurally not assessable from a repository.

Read more, or read your own

The full report on frappe/lms: 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.