Update codeql.yml #173
Update codeql.yml #173
Conversation
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThe pull request updates the CodeQL workflow configuration by simplifying the YAML file. It removes unnecessary comments and instructions, consolidates the runner configuration, simplifies the language matrix, and changes the analysis category to 'security'. No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation. File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the CodeQL GitHub Actions workflow configuration file. The changes primarily involve simplifying the workflow by removing comments, streamlining the configuration, and reducing complexity. The workflow remains focused on CodeQL analysis for C# language, with modifications to the run environment, timeout settings, and analysis step parameters. The overall intent appears to be creating a more concise and straightforward workflow configuration. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
gstraccini
bot
added
the
☑️ auto-merge
![gstraccini[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/480132?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
Here's the code health analysis summary for commits Analysis Summary
Code Coverage Report
|
github-actions
bot
added
the
size/M
penify-dev
bot
added
the
Review effort [1-5]: 2
PR Review 🔍
|
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've completed my review and didn't find any issues.
Need a new review? Comment
/korbit-reviewon this PR and I'll review your latest changes.Korbit Guide: Usage and Customization
Interacting with Korbit
- You can manually ask Korbit to review your PR using the
/korbit-reviewcommand in a comment at the root of your PR.- You can ask Korbit to generate a new PR description using the
/korbit-generate-pr-descriptioncommand in any comment on your PR.- Too many Korbit comments? I can resolve all my comment threads if you use the
/korbit-resolvecommand in any comment on your PR.- Chat with Korbit on issues we post by tagging @korbit-ai in your reply.
- Help train Korbit to improve your reviews by giving a 👍 or 👎 on the comments Korbit posts.
Customizing Korbit
- Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
- Customize Korbit for your organization through the Korbit Console.
Current Korbit Configuration
General Settings
Setting Value Review Schedule Automatic excluding drafts Max Issue Count 10 Automatic PR Descriptions ✅ Issue Categories
Category Enabled Naming ✅ Database Operations ✅ Documentation ✅ Logging ✅ Error Handling ✅ Systems and Environment ✅ Objects and Data Structures ✅ Readability and Maintainability ✅ Asynchronous Processing ✅ Design Patterns ✅ Third-Party Libraries ✅ Performance ✅ Security ✅ Functionality ✅ Feedback and Support
Note
Korbit Pro is free for open source projects 🎉
Looking to add Korbit to your team? Get started with a free 2 week trial here
|
Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked! 💻 Scan logs7:05PM INF scanning for exposed secrets...
7:05PM INF 131 commits scanned.
7:05PM INF scan completed in 93.7ms
7:05PM INF no leaks found
|
PR Code Suggestions ✨
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @guibranco - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
Overall Comments:
- Consider preserving key documentation comments, particularly the links to hardware requirements and query configuration options. These provide valuable context for future maintenance.
- The change from
/language:${{matrix.language}}tosecurityin the analysis category is a significant modification. Please confirm this is intentional and won't limit the analysis scope.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
.github/workflows/codeql.yml (3)
14-14: Consider future language support.While
ubuntu-latestis suitable for C#, consider maintaining language-specific runners if you plan to add support for other languages in the future.
45-45: Consider additional CodeQL categories.While "security" is crucial, CodeQL supports other valuable categories like "maintainability" and "reliability". Consider running multiple analysis passes with different categories for comprehensive code quality checks.
Line range hint
1-46: Consider adding timeout configuration.The removal of timeout settings could impact CI pipeline stability for large codebases. Consider adding:
timeout-minutes: 360 # or adjust based on your codebase size
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/codeql.yml(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
- GitHub Check: Analyze (csharp)
- GitHub Check: pixeebot[bot]
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/codeql.yml (3)
5-9: LGTM! Good security practices in trigger configuration.The combination of PR/push triggers and weekly scans ensures comprehensive security coverage.
23-23: LGTM! Clean matrix configuration.The simplified matrix configuration is appropriate for a C#-only codebase while maintaining extensibility.
29-32: Verify .NET version compatibility.Using .NET 9.x (preview/early access) might cause stability issues. Please verify:
- If this matches your project's target framework
- If you need to support multiple .NET versions
Consider using a matrix strategy for multiple .NET versions:
strategy: matrix: dotnet-version: ['6.0.x', '7.0.x', '8.0.x']✅ Verification successful
Matrix strategy recommended for multi-targeted projects
Your use of .NET 9.x is aligned with the project's target frameworks. However, since at least one project targets both net8.0 and net9.0, consider using a matrix strategy to test against both versions:
strategy: matrix: dotnet-version: ['8.0.x', '9.0.x']🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check target framework in project files fd -e csproj -x cat {} \; | grep -i 'TargetFramework'Length of output: 157
User description
📑 Description
Update codeql.yml
✅ Checks
☢️ Does this introduce a breaking change?
Note
I'm currently writing a description for your pull request. I should be done shortly (<1 minute). Please don't edit the description field until I'm finished, or we may overwrite each other. If I find nothing to write about, I'll delete this message.
Description
runs-onandpermissionssettings have been clarified.Changes walkthrough 📝
codeql.yml
Simplify and Update CodeQL Workflow Configuration.github/workflows/codeql.yml
runs-onandpermissionssettings for clarity.Summary by CodeRabbit