8000 PR Checks: Use `tools: linked` rather than `tools: latest` by angelapwen · Pull Request #2320 · github/codeql-action · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

PR Checks: Use tools: linked rather than tools: latest #2320

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 31, 2024
Merged

PR Checks: Use tools: linked rather than tools: latest #2320

merged 1 commit into from
May 31, 2024

Conversation

angelapwen
Copy link
Contributor
@angelapwen angelapwen commented May 31, 2024 •
edited
Loading

As of #2281, we introduced linked as a more descriptive value for the tools input. This PR updates our own PR checks and workflows with the new value and changes the input/output in the prepare-test Action to use linked.

All of the required PR checks that had latest in their names, for main have been updated. As we release v3 and v2 we'll want to do the same for those branches.

Merge / deployment checklist

  • Confirm this change is backwards compatible with existing workflows.
  • Confirm the readme has been updated if necessary.
  • Confirm the changelog has been updated if necessary.

@angelapwen
PR Checks: Use tools: linked rather than tools: latest
67d5a9a 
Also changes the input and output in the `prepare-test` Action to use `linked`.
@angelapwen angelapwen force-pushed the angelapwen/use-linked-in-tests branch from 2d5d2ad to 67d5a9a Compare May 31, 2024 09:49
@github-advanced-security
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

@angelapwen angelapwen force-pushed the angelapwen/use-linked-in-tests branch from 3b0d213 to 67d5a9a Compare May 31, 2024 10:02
@angelapwen angelapwen marked this pull request as ready for review May 31, 2024 11:40
@angelapwen angelapwen requested a review from a team as a code owner May 31, 2024 11:40
@angelapwen angelapwen requested a review from NlightNFotis May 31, 2024 11:40
@henrymercer
Copy link
Contributor
henrymercer commented 8000 May 31, 2024

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

I think this is happening because we renamed tools: latest to tools: linked. Once we've merged this PR we can go through to the tool status page and delete the analysis for tools: latest to avoid a stale tip.

NlightNFotis
NlightNFotis approved these changes May 31, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member
@NlightNFotis NlightNFotis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks comprehensive to me, thank you for your effort cleaning this up.

I have a couple of questions (minor, so not to hold up this PR from getting merged):

  • Is there any way for us to know if we have forgotten any places where this should be sustituted, save for doing a whole source-root grep?
  • If we have forgotten anything, my understanding is that the impact is going to be low, given the intentional backwards compatibility in the change. Is this still deemed accurate, or am I missing something that requires greater precision in the change?

@angelapwen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the review!!

  • Is there any way for us to know if we have forgotten any places where this should be sustituted, save for doing a whole source-root grep?

I also just greped it 🤔 I don't know that there's a better way, but (as you mentioned) the impact is low so I think it's fine if we end up with some extra latest workflows.

  • If we have forgotten anything, my understanding is that the impact is going to be low, given the intentional backwards compatibility in the change. Is this still deemed accurate, or am I missing something that requires greater precision in the change?

That's still accurate! I just saw the warnings when I was checking the logs of some PR checks and thought it would be best to switch over. The linked naming really clarifies the intent, I think!

@angelapwen angelapwen merged commit add199b into main May 31, 2024
886 checks passed
@angelapwen angelapwen deleted the angelapwen/use-linked-in-tests branch May 31, 2024 13:55
This was referenced Jun 4, 2024
Merged
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@NlightNFotis NlightNFotis NlightNFotis approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@angelapwen @henrymercer @NlightNFotis
0