Skip to content
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

Create codeql-analysis.yml #4591

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 5, 2022
Merged

Create codeql-analysis.yml #4591

merged 1 commit into from
May 5, 2022

Conversation

afrittoli
Copy link
Member

Changes

Enable the standard codeql analysis from GitHub.
This runs as a GitHub action. The configuration is the vanilla one proposed by GitHub.

/kind misc

Submitter Checklist

As the author of this PR, please check off the items in this checklist:

  • [-] Docs included if any changes are user facing
  • [-] Tests included if any functionality added or changed
  • Follows the commit message standard
  • Meets the Tekton contributor standards (including
    functionality, content, code)
  • Release notes block below has been filled in or deleted (only if no user facing changes)

Release Notes

NONE

Enable the standard codeql analysis from GitHub.
@tekton-robot tekton-robot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesnt merit a release note. kind/misc Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Feb 17, 2022
@afrittoli
Copy link
Member Author

/test pull-tekton-pipeline-alpha-integration-tests

@afrittoli
Copy link
Member Author

@vdemeester @dibyom @bobcatfish This didn't find any issue - only a couple in test code which I dismissed as not relevant.
What do you think about keeping this action around i.e. merge the PR?

@dlorenc
Copy link
Contributor

dlorenc commented Feb 22, 2022

What do you think about keeping this action around i.e. merge the PR?

Just my 2c - I've never seen this find a relevant issue. It takes a long time and it's only ever noticed 2-3 things for me that weren't valid. I think codeql is better in native non-memory safe code. It's not really that annoying since false positives are rare, but any findings at all are very rare.

Copy link
Member

@vdemeester vdemeester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't take more time than any of our current jobs, so.. I am fine having it there.

@tekton-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: vdemeester

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Mar 9, 2022
@abayer
Copy link
Contributor

abayer commented May 5, 2022

/lgtm

@tekton-robot tekton-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label May 5, 2022
@tekton-robot tekton-robot merged commit b404705 into main May 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. kind/misc Categorizes issue or PR as a miscellaneuous one. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesnt merit a release note. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants