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

Support splitting of DB creation and query execution #602

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 28, 2021

Conversation

edoardopirovano
Copy link
Contributor

This PR makes a couple of changes that make it possible to write workflows that either don't create a CodeQL database, or don't run any CodeQL queries. In particular:

  • The analyze step now supports a skip-queries parameter that tells it to not run any queries.
  • The analyze step will now no longer error if a finalized database already exists. Instead, it will log an informational message, skip the finalize step, and proceed with query execution.

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.

@edoardopirovano edoardopirovano requested a review from a team as a code owner June 28, 2021 10:42
if (runStats && uploadStats) {
await sendStatusReport(startedAt, { ...runStats, ...uploadStats });
} else if (runStats) {
await sendStatusReport(startedAt, { ...runStats });
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ideally still send a successful status report here, even if we don't have runStats. You'll probably have to amend to types to in order to do that.

Copy link
Contributor

@aeisenberg aeisenberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice.

I think it's great that we're running more unit-like integration tests on different options for the action. The pr-checks workflow is getting long. I wonder if we should be splitting these into a separate workflow.

.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
logger
);
await runFinalize(outputDir, threads, config, logger);
if (actionsUtil.getRequiredInput("skip-queries") !== "true") {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Two comments:

  1. getRequiredInput will fail if the input isn't there. I don't think that's what we want, since this input is optional.
  2. Just a nit: Not sure how we are doing it for other boolean inputs, but do we want to support variants like True, TRUE, yes, 1, etc? Hmmm...and I see that you are using the same pattern we are using elsewhere. We should consider changing this, but in a separate PR.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think using getRequiredInput is fine here because the input is defined as

  skip-queries:
    description: If this option is set, the CodeQL database will be built but no queries will be run on it. Thus, no results will be produced.
    required: false
    default: "false"

so if not given by the user then the actions runtime inserts the default value, so our code will always see a value present.

I did run into a problem during tests because then the value really will be missing and getRequiredInput will crash.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah...got it. So, ignore my first comment. :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In response to 2: I definitely agree we should support more variants of true. Let's leave it for a separate PR.

src/analyze.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/analyze.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
await runAnalyze(
const threads = getThreadsFlag(cmd.threads, logger);
await runFinalize(outputDir, threads, config, logger);
await runQueries(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So, we are not adding this functionality to the runner? This should be called out in the changelog.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, I don't think we need this in the runner (or at least, nobody has asked for it). I will address this in the changelog.

CHANGELOG.md Outdated
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
## [UNRELEASED]

- Fix `RUNNER_TEMP environment variable must be set` when using runner.
- The `analyze` step now supports a `skip-queries` option to merely build the CodeQL database without analyzing.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can you add a link to this PR in the changelog entry for consistency?

Also, I think you should add something about handling already finalized databases.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, though it is a rather long changelog entry now.

Copy link
Contributor

@aeisenberg aeisenberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@

## [UNRELEASED]

No user facing changes.
- The `analyze` step of the Action now supports a `skip-queries` option to merely build the CodeQL database without analyzing. This functionality is not present in the runner. Additionally, the step will no longer fail if it encounters a finalized database, and will instead continue with query execution. [#602](https://github.com/github/codeql-action/pull/602)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: If you wanted to, you could turn this into 2 entries. This would make each entry shorter.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Let's keep as is, it seems weird to have two entries referring to the same PR.

@edoardopirovano edoardopirovano merged commit 53cf5d9 into github:main Jun 28, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 5, 2021
5 tasks
@edoardopirovano edoardopirovano deleted the split-create-analysis branch July 12, 2021 08:20
@github-actions github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2021
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants