New GitHub Code Scanning feature makes unwanted comments on each PR #215
Assignees
Labels
Comments
I think it should probably help but looking https://github.com/search?q=%22As+part+of+the+setup+process%2C+we+have+scanned+this+repository+and+found+no+existing+alerts.%22&type=issues it seems GitHub just broke actions that don't look like CodeQL to cater to CodeQL and that wasn't very nice probably. |
|
I think it could be that GH shows this because there are no shellcheck alerts in the systemd repository and because of that GH assumes that the action has just been introduced. If that is the case it's probably a GH bug. |
|
Yes, It seems like a GH bug. Im going to do some testing to see if I can find some workaround. Thanks for looking into this @evverx |
|
Ok, so I think the way how to fix it, at least for the current config: - jamacku/systemd#72 I'll prepare PR. |
jamacku
added a commit
to jamacku/systemd
that referenced
this issue
Mar 22, 2023
Also update `differential-shellcheck` to latest version - https://github.com/redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck/releases Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
jamacku
added a commit
to jamacku/systemd
that referenced
this issue
Mar 22, 2023
Also update `differential-shellcheck` to latest version - https://github.com/redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck/releases Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
This was referenced Mar 22, 2023
kdudka
pushed a commit
to logrotate/logrotate
that referenced
this issue
Mar 22, 2023
This was referenced Mar 23, 2023
cgwalters
pushed a commit
to coreos/rpm-ostree
that referenced
this issue
Mar 25, 2023
Also, update `differential-shellcheck` to the latest version - https://github.com/redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck/releases Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#222
YHNdnzj
pushed a commit
to YHNdnzj/sbupdate
that referenced
this issue
Mar 25, 2023
`differential-shellcheck@v4` added support for `on: push` triggers. Related to: - redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
YHNdnzj
added a commit
to YHNdnzj/arch-install-scripts
that referenced
this issue
Mar 26, 2023
mrc0mmand
added a commit
to mrc0mmand/mkosi
that referenced
this issue
Mar 28, 2023
to get rid of the annoying message on new PRs. Also, update the action to the latest version and drop now unnecessary permissions. See: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 Addresses: systemd#1413 (comment)
behrmann
pushed a commit
to systemd/mkosi
that referenced
this issue
Mar 28, 2023
to get rid of the annoying message on new PRs. Also, update the action to the latest version and drop now unnecessary permissions. See: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 Addresses: #1413 (comment)
zmiklank
pushed a commit
to sclorg/container-common-scripts
that referenced
this issue
Mar 30, 2023
Also, update `differential-shellcheck` to the latest version - https://github.com/redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck/releases Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
jamacku
added a commit
to jamacku/systemd-rhel9
that referenced
this issue
Mar 30, 2023
Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 rhel-only Related: #2100440
jamacku
added a commit
to jamacku/systemd-rhel8
that referenced
this issue
Mar 30, 2023
Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 rhel-only Related: #2179309
smcv
pushed a commit
to flatpak/flatpak
that referenced
this issue
Mar 31, 2023
martinpitt
pushed a commit
to cockpit-project/cockpit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 1, 2023
Is this a workaround, or a real fix? Has this been reported as GitHub issue? |
|
For that new GH feature to work it has to be able to compare PRs with the "main" branch so I'd say it's a real fix in the sense that it makes the action compatible with that feature. To get rid of those annoying comments GH would have to somehow special case actions that run on PRs only and I don't think GH is particularly interested in it (because it would most likely involve partially rolling back that feature or allowing certain actions to opt-out). I don't know if it has been reported or not but looking at the number of the comments I think GH is aware of them. |
Vincinator
added a commit
to gardenlinux/gardenlinux
that referenced
this issue
Apr 2, 2023
Vincinator
added a commit
to gardenlinux/gardenlinux
that referenced
this issue
Apr 3, 2023
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/flask-whooshee
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/flask-whooshee
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
praiskup
added a commit
to fedora-copr/flask-whooshee
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-action
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
We have to specify the 'push' target. This avoids the message: | You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration | .github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of the | setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no existing | alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning alerts on the | repository Security tab. ... in every single PR. Without 'push' defined GitHub thinks that the linter action is added in every single pull-request. While on it, move the 'if' statements down so the rules are slightly more readable. Related: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-action
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
We have to specify the 'push' target. This avoids the message: | You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration | .github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of the | setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no existing | alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning alerts on the | repository Security tab. ... in every single PR. Without 'push' defined GitHub thinks that the linter action is added in every single pull-request. While on it, move the 'if' statements down so the rules are slightly more readable. Related: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/copr
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
It looked like:
You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration
.github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of
the setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no
existing alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning
alerts on the repository Security tab.
The reason is that GitHub assumed that every single pull-request
actually *newly* enabled the vcs-diff-lint action. When we define also
the 'push' action, the assumption no longer applies (sorta bug, not
sure).
Relates: fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint-action#16
Relates: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/copr
that referenced
this issue
Apr 4, 2023
It looked like:
You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration
.github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of
the setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no
existing alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning
alerts on the repository Security tab.
The reason was that GitHub assumed that every single pull-request
actually *newly* enabled the vcs-diff-lint action. When we define also
the 'push' action, the assumption no longer applies (sorta GitHub bug,
not sure).
Relates: fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint-action#16
Relates: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/vcs-diff-lint-action
that referenced
this issue
Apr 5, 2023
We have to specify the 'push' target to avoid the message | You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration | .github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of the | setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no existing | alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning alerts on the | repository Security tab. ... appearing in every single PR. Without the 'push' trigger defined, GitHub thinks that the linter action is being added in every single pull-request. Though, since the workflow is newly run for 'push' events, we have to do some reasonable "no-op". For the first implementation, we simply try to generate an empty list of issues (therefore the container fix here). For the vcs-diff-lint case, it doesn't make too much sense to do the analysis on pushes. At least not in the "basic" differential use-case we have now. We could e.g. do full-scan in the future if there was demand for it. So I'm fixing the example in README.md to define "push", too. While on it, move the 'if' statements down so the rules are slightly more readable. Related: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 Closes: fedora-copr#17 Closes: fedora-copr#16
praiskup
added a commit
to fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint-action
that referenced
this issue
Apr 5, 2023
We have to specify the 'push' target to avoid the message | You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration | .github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of the | setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no existing | alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning alerts on the | repository Security tab. ... appearing in every single PR. Without the 'push' trigger defined, GitHub thinks that the linter action is being added in every single pull-request. Though, since the workflow is newly run for 'push' events, we have to do some reasonable "no-op". For the first implementation, we simply try to generate an empty list of issues (therefore the container fix here). For the vcs-diff-lint case, it doesn't make too much sense to do the analysis on pushes. At least not in the "basic" differential use-case we have now. We could e.g. do full-scan in the future if there was demand for it. So I'm fixing the example in README.md to define "push", too. While on it, move the 'if' statements down so the rules are slightly more readable. Related: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 Closes: #17 Closes: #16
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/copr
that referenced
this issue
Apr 5, 2023
It looked like:
You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration
.github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of
the setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no
existing alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning
alerts on the repository Security tab.
The reason was that GitHub assumed that every single pull-request
actually *newly* enabled the vcs-diff-lint action. When we define also
the 'push' action, the assumption no longer applies (sorta GitHub bug,
not sure).
Relates: fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint-action#16
Relates: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
FrostyX
pushed a commit
to fedora-copr/copr
that referenced
this issue
Apr 6, 2023
It looked like:
You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration
.github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of
the setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no
existing alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning
alerts on the repository Security tab.
The reason was that GitHub assumed that every single pull-request
actually *newly* enabled the vcs-diff-lint action. When we define also
the 'push' action, the assumption no longer applies (sorta GitHub bug,
not sure).
Relates: fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint-action#16
Relates: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
89luca89
pushed a commit
to 89luca89/distrobox
that referenced
this issue
Apr 6, 2023
systemd-rhel-bot
pushed a commit
to redhat-plumbers/systemd-rhel9
that referenced
this issue
Apr 19, 2023
Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 rhel-only Related: #2100440
|
@jamacku good to know. Thanks! I think actions still should be triggered on push events to get diffs. My guess would be that without that all alerts would be "new" and invisible for external contributors. |
phracek
pushed a commit
to hhorak/container-common-scripts
that referenced
this issue
May 17, 2023
Also, update `differential-shellcheck` to the latest version - https://github.com/redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck/releases Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
praiskup
added a commit
to praiskup/resalloc
that referenced
this issue
Aug 2, 2023
It looked like:
You have successfully added a new vcs-diff-lint configuration
.github/workflows/python-diff-lint.yml:python-lint-job. As part of
the setup process, we have scanned this repository and found no
existing alerts. In the future, you will see all code scanning
alerts on the repository Security tab.
The reason was that GitHub assumed that every single pull-request
actually *newly* enabled the vcs-diff-lint action. When we define also
the 'push' action, the assumption no longer applies (sorta GitHub bug,
not sure).
Relates: fedora-copr/vcs-diff-lint-action#16
Relates: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215
zlind0
pushed a commit
to zlind0/systemd-239
that referenced
this issue
Sep 14, 2024
Fixes: redhat-plumbers-in-action/differential-shellcheck#215 rhel-only Related: #2179309
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Type of issue
Bug Report
Description
New GitHub feature announced via blog - Code scanning shows more accurate and relevant alerts on pull requests
Example:
Describe the solution you'd like
We should probably check what GitHub means by "The change ensures code scanning only shows accurate and relevant alerts for the pull request" and by "Now, the tool reports only alerts inside the lines of code that the pull request has changed, which makes it easier to fix these contextualized alerts in a timely manner." Is GitHub doing differential reports now?
Maybe using the official way how to upload SARIF will solve our issue: https://github.com/github/codeql-action/blob/v2/upload-sarif/action.yml
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: