-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add CodeQL GitHub Actions workflow #125
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
# The branches below must be a subset of the branches above | ||
branches: [ "main" ] | ||
schedule: | ||
- cron: '37 9 * * 6' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Saturdays at 9:37 AM UTC is awfully specific
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yea, when you have GitHub create the workflow it seems to randomly select a random weekly time. Probably to prevent everyone from hammering their CodeQL runners at the same time every week.
I just created another workflow now and it gave me - cron: '28 13 * * 2'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah that makes sense! Well I just wanted to see if the workflow would succeed (it did), feel free to take over this PR or start a new one since they're your changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approved but I don't think this resolves #102. Admittedly that task isn't well written but the intent was to have code quality and security analyzed. I just added 38c1055 which enables the quality scanning but I think we need to filter which rules we want to surface to complete the task.
For example, I don't think we want to warn on this rule: https://github.com/decline-cookies/anvil-csharp-core/security/code-scanning/18
Also, the set-output
warning emitted during the action. Looks like the warning will be fixed by GitHub in the next release github/codeql-action#1305
What issues does this resolve?
What PRs does this depend on?
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Just wanted to open the PR and see if this workflow would succeed!