-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 902
ci: enable CodeQL code scanning #5279
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
Conversation
Hi @kylecarbs. What do you think about running this security analysis? |
This Pull Request is becoming stale. In order to minimize WIP, prevent merge conflicts and keep the tracker readable, I'm going close to this PR in 3 days if there isn't more activity. |
@ghuntley. You may close this if not planned. |
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.
Personally I think this could be a nice addition, thanks for the PR! I'd like to know what @kylecarbs and @ghuntley think though (maybe @deansheather too?). And if we do want to merge, we should fix/silence the current errors first.
(PS. To fix the test/js failure, rebase/merge on top of master.)
.github/workflows/codeql.yml
Outdated
strategy: | ||
fail-fast: false | ||
matrix: | ||
language: [ 'go', 'javascript' ] |
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.
Should we limit JavaScript scope to ./site
, exclude node_modules
? (https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/code-scanning/automatically-scanning-your-code-for-vulnerabilities-and-errors/configuring-code-scanning#specifying-directories-to-scan)
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.
Yes we may limit this scanning to only ./site
. You are welcome to propose this change.
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Dean Sheather <[email protected]>
I think this is good to merge but I would like approval from @ElliotG first. I will ask them in slack |
Elliot is unavailable at the moment so once Mathias approves we can merge. |
Co-authored-by: Mathias Fredriksson <[email protected]>
With bcde5f3 it now runs faster (still pretty slow @ 7+ minutes though). It's a bit of an ugly hack but it works. The https://github.com/coder/coder/actions/runs/3739932860/jobs/6347716302 |
Actually, we may want to put back the manual installation of specific Go version, just spotted this output:
Since we use go 1.19, I'm guessing it'd be good for the environment to be go 1.19 as well. |
Updated as per @mafredri suggestion.
Removed |
👍 I noticed the |
Added that back @mafredri But still taking +7 minutes. |
Thanks. Yeah it's too bad. I'm not sure if we can beat the 7min by much but I tried adding go mod caching in hopes that it'd save some time, let's see. EDIT: Nice, down to a bit over 5min. |
Thought it’d be nice to get this in so I hit merge. Thanks for your contribution @matifali! (We can always iterate on this further if something needs tweaking.) |
No description provided.