Add a 'source-root' input to the init Action #607

mario-campos · 2021-06-29T21:13:03Z

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.

This input is exposed in the CodeQL CLI as the flag --source-root, allowing users of the CLI to set --source-root different from --working-dir. However, in codeql-action, these two paths are conflated and it poses problems for users with complicated build environments, in which a source root may be a child of the working directory. Most users should not notice this, as the default value is ${{ github.workspace }}, as it is implied now (`path.resolve()`).

In the previous commit, the default value of the input is ${{ github.workspace }} which means that most uses of this input would probably prefix their paths with ${{ github.workspace }}, especially since actions/checkout's 'path' input must be under ${{ github.workspace }}. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense for this to be an absolute file path. Instead, it's more intuitive to make this relative to the repository.

It causes the action to break (or rather that context being unavailable causes it to fail), despite it being in the description field.

aibaars · 2021-06-30T08:51:40Z

init/action.yml

@@ -38,6 +38,9 @@ inputs:
    description: Try to auto-install your python dependencies
    required: true
    default: 'true'
+  source-root:
+    description: Path to the root source-code directory, relative to the workspace.


I saw you had trouble using ${{ github.workspace }} in the description. In https://github.com/actions/checkout/blob/main/action.yml they use $GITHUB_WORKSPACE and it appears that

default: ${{ github.workspace }}

is also allowed.

Yes, it is. That was in my first commit, but when I actually started to use it in my test, I found it inconvenient to always have to specify a ${{ github.workspace }} prefix. Hence, why I made it relative to the repo in subsequent commits.

aibaars

This looks good to me, thanks!

src/init-action.ts

init/action.yml

robertbrignull

I'm worried there are two usages changed within the runner but only one in the init-action. It looks like there's a use of getRequiredEnvParam("GITHUB_WORKSPACE") passed to initConfig in init-action.ts that also needs changing.

Although, I'm actually not sure that changing the calls to initConfig is the right thing to do. This will change how local queries are resolved and I'm not sure if that is intended or not.

In general it depends how this option will be used. Is it for when you want to analyze the whole repository but the repository is checked out to a non-standard location? If so then this change looks good to me (minus my comment above). If instead the intention is to be able to analyze only a subdirectory of a repository, then I think this may need deeper thought to know if this will work or not.

Finally, what manual testing has been done of this? Have you tried running it in a workflow.

robertbrignull · 2021-06-30T09:35:58Z

To follow on from my comment above, looking at how it works in runner.ts currently, the option is used to control where the repository being analyzed is checked out to, but we haven't done it properly. It seems wrong to me that we currently use cmd.checkoutPath in initConfig but don't use it when initializing the codeql databases. So to a large degree the changes in this PR are just fixing a bug that was present already 👍

aibaars · 2021-06-30T09:46:00Z

I'm worried there are two usages changed within the runner but only one in the init-action. It looks like there's a use of getRequiredEnvParam("GITHUB_WORKSPACE") passed to initConfig in init-action.ts that also needs changing.

Although, I'm actually not sure that changing the calls to initConfig is the right thing to do. This will change how local queries are resolved and I'm not sure if that is intended or not.

I think we should not change initConfig here. The source-root property is the equivalent of the --source-root flag of the CodeQL CLI and its only purpose it to inform CodeQL what the path to the "source files" is so it can produce the correct relative paths in the SARIF output.

robertbrignull · 2021-06-30T10:15:51Z

I think we should not change initConfig here.

I've now come around to the other way of thinking. I think we should change initConfig (in the sense that we should pass the checkout path to it) because that's what we're already doing in the runnner. You can see we pass cmd.checkoutPath to initConfig and that's currently the only place we use it in the runner command.

The source-root property is the equivalent of the --source-root flag of the CodeQL CLI and its only purpose it to inform CodeQL what the path to the "source files" is so it can produce the correct relative paths in the SARIF output.

What does "path to the source files" mean? Is that the root of the github repository, or a subdirectory within a repository? When talking about relative paths in the SARIF output we need those to be relative to the root of the repository, don't we? If not then showing files in the code scanning UI will not work.

aibaars · 2021-06-30T10:39:37Z

What does "path to the source files" mean? Is that the root of the github repository, or a subdirectory within a repository? When talking about relative paths in the SARIF output we need those to be relative to the root of the repository, don't we? If not then showing files in the code scanning UI will not work.

Yes that's right. It should be the path to the root of the github repository being analysed, or perhaps more precisely the repository to which the SARIF file will be uploaded. The use-case for this feature is for complex build setups that for example require a bunch of repositories (the repo to be analysed an its dependencies) to be checked out in a particular folder hierarchy that does not match the actions/checkout's defaults .

aibaars · 2021-06-30T10:43:33Z

I've now come around to the other way of thinking. I think we should change initConfig (in the sense that we should pass the checkout path to it) because that's what we're already doing in the runnner. You can see we pass cmd.checkoutPath to initConfig and that's currently the only place we use it in the runner command.

I think there is no such thing as "the checkout path". A user can organise the workspace folder structure in any way they like either by configuring actions/checkout or even cloning repos "manually". I think a user could store the config file in another repo that is checked out somewhere in the workspace, or perhaps even have it in a fixed place on a self-hosted worker.

mario-campos · 2021-06-30T12:54:57Z

Although, I'm actually not sure that changing the calls to initConfig is the right thing to do. This will change how local queries are resolved and I'm not sure if that is intended or not.

Yes, I deliberately did not change initConfig because I believe that when someone specifies a local query in the config file, ./ has the connotation of the root of the repository. It would be very confusing to find that it changes based on the source-root specified elsewhere in the workflow file, in my opinion.

Is it for when you want to analyze the whole repository but the repository is checked out to a non-standard location?

Yes, exactly, which, admittedly, is a minor use-case, but one that I have seen already and one which is supported in the CLI with the --source-root and --working-dir flags.

If instead the intention is to be able to analyze only a subdirectory of a repository, then I think this may need deeper thought to know if this will work or not.

My intention was not to replace paths/paths-ignore. Although, it seems it could somewhat be used to that effect.

Finally, what manual testing has been done of this? Have you tried running it in a workflow.

Yes, you can find the workflow here and the results there.

robertbrignull · 2021-06-30T14:22:10Z

@mario-campos, sorry for the confusing comments above. You can likely ignore my comments and go with what @aibaars says. We had quite a long chat on this and I think we're now on the same page with this, so you can ignore anything contradictory that I said earlier.

Previously, I had tried to refer to '${{ github.workspace }}', but that caused a problem in Actions. Trying to avoid the issue, I changed this to "the workspace," but this gives up quite a bit of specificity. Co-authored-by: Arthur Baars <[email protected]>

@aibaars

Thanks to @aibaars, `path.resolve()` should will nicely handle more use-cases, namely absolute paths better than `path.join()`. Co-authored-by: Arthur Baars <[email protected]>

adityasharad

Looks sensible. Would you be willing to add a test, here or in a follow up PR?

adityasharad · 2021-07-01T16:36:43Z

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@

 ## [UNRELEASED]

+- The `init` step of the Action now supports a `source-root` input to be able to specify a path under the GitHub workspace to be the root source-code directory. [#607](https://github.com/github/codeql-action/pull/607)


Could we mention that the default is the $GITHUB_WORKSPACE root?

@adityasharad

This addresses @adityasharad's suggestions in PR #607.

mario-campos · 2021-07-01T17:36:02Z

Yes, I can add tests. Where would I do that, though? I don't see a test file for init.ts.

adityasharad · 2021-07-01T17:45:39Z

Hmm good point, we don't seem to have unit tests. Perhaps another test job in pr-checks.yml, that exercises the source-root field in the init step. I think you can copy the test-packaging-javascript-config job as a template, and remove the packs inputs there. Those tests use a simple multilanguage test folder checked into the repo, so you could point explicitly to that path as the source root.

This config file 'ought to have some queries good for testing!

mario-campos · 2021-07-01T22:03:05Z

Huh. Any idea why a source root would be considered invalid (aside from it not existing)?

A fatal error occurred: Invalid source root: /home/runner/work/codeql-action/codeql-action/tests/multi-language-repo.
Error: Failure invoking /opt/hostedtoolcache/CodeQL/0.0.0-20210622/x64/codeql/codeql with arguments database,init,/home/runner/work/_temp/codeql_databases/javascript,--language=javascript,--source-root=/home/runner/work/codeql-action/codeql-action/tests/multi-language-repo.

Exit code 2 and error was:

A fatal error occurred: Invalid source root: /home/runner/work/codeql-action/codeql-action/tests/multi-language-repo.

adityasharad · 2021-07-01T22:25:46Z

.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml

+      run: |
+        mkdir ../action
+        mv * .github ../action/
+        mv ../action/tests/multi-language-repo/{*,.github} .


I suspect this is the problem: it will move all the contents of multi-language-repo into the current directory, and not preserve the tests/multi-language-repo enclosing directories.

One option to try might be to avoid these moves entirely, and set source-root as you've done below. The moves are needed for other tests because they scan the entire repo from the workspace root, but the whole point of source-root is to customise that behaviour.

Good call. That makes sense.

adityasharad · 2021-07-01T22:26:07Z

.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml

+        mv ../action/.github/workflows .github
+    - uses: ./../action/init
+      with:
+        config-file: ".github/codeql/codeql-config-packaging.yml"


I think you may be able to remove this, and keep the test focused on only the source-root feature.

.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml

The test is not related to packaging. Co-authored-by: Aditya Sharad <[email protected]>

@adityasharad

Moving the files into ../action was causing the job to fail because it couldn't find the test directory anymore. According to @adityasharad, these 'mv's should not be necessary. Removing these means changing the path to the actions. I'm also removing the 'config-file' input to keep the test minimal. I think this will mean that CodeQL will use the default query suite, so I hope that this doesn't change the results.

…tion into source-root-input

As this test is using only JS, it's not necessary to compile or analyze the other languages.

This is for PR #607, 'source-root' input test case.

adityasharad

One test addition to actually build the database, then I think it's good to go!

.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml

Co-authored-by: Aditya Sharad <[email protected]>

@adityasharad

This addresses @adityasharad's suggestions in PR github#607.

This is for PR github#607, 'source-root' input test case.

mario-campos added 3 commits June 29, 2021 15:16

Remove '${{ github.workspace }}' from action.yml

a05a7f9

It causes the action to break (or rather that context being unavailable causes it to fail), despite it being in the description field.

mario-campos requested a review from a team as a code owner June 29, 2021 21:13

mario-campos added 2 commits June 29, 2021 16:14

Update CHANGELOG for PR #607

57f584a

Recompile JS files to bring JS inline with TS for PR #607

e1cd524

aibaars reviewed Jun 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/init-action.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

init/action.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

robertbrignull reviewed Jun 30, 2021

View reviewed changes

mario-campos and others added 3 commits June 30, 2021 12:32

Use path.resolve instead of path.join for sourceRoot

35e1b55

Thanks to @aibaars, `path.resolve()` should will nicely handle more use-cases, namely absolute paths better than `path.join()`. Co-authored-by: Arthur Baars <[email protected]>

Recompile code after accepting suggestions from PR #607 review

a607042

aibaars mentioned this pull request Jul 1, 2021

Replace checkoutPath variable with sourceRoot/workspacePath variables #610

Merged

3 tasks

Merge branch 'main' into source-root-input

c6728b6

adityasharad approved these changes Jul 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

Clarify 'source-root' description to include default path

45c0f11

This addresses @adityasharad's suggestions in PR #607.

mario-campos added 2 commits July 1, 2021 15:26

Add test case for 'source-root' input to 'init' Action

c78fb87

Use different config file for testing 'source-root' input

028f98f

This config file 'ought to have some queries good for testing!

adityasharad reviewed Jul 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

Delete 'packaing' from source-root test job name

67d6f79

The test is not related to packaging. Co-authored-by: Aditya Sharad <[email protected]>

mario-campos added 5 commits July 1, 2021 18:34

Merge branch 'source-root-input' of github.com:mario-campos/codeql-ac…

2ca807c

…tion into source-root-input

Rename CodeQL action paths in 'source-root' test to reflect repo paths

12f1cff

Remove build.sh step from 'source-root' test

2c0da4b

As this test is using only JS, it's not necessary to compile or analyze the other languages.

Test presence of database instead of results of analysis

b9217ca

This is for PR #607, 'source-root' input test case.

adityasharad approved these changes Jul 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/pr-checks.yml Show resolved Hide resolved

mario-campos and others added 2 commits July 2, 2021 14:50

Add analyze step to 'source-root' input test case

06c6845

Co-authored-by: Aditya Sharad <[email protected]>

Merge branch 'main' into source-root-input

a4a91a8

IssacAlegre approved these changes Jul 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into source-root-input

9932052

aibaars approved these changes Jul 13, 2021

View reviewed changes

aibaars enabled auto-merge July 13, 2021 11:13

aibaars merged commit 3b017ef into github:main Jul 13, 2021

mario-campos deleted the source-root-input branch July 14, 2021 15:19

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2021

Merge main into v1 #621

Merged

5 tasks

aofaof0907 pushed a commit to aofaof0907/codeql-action that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2021

Update CHANGELOG for PR github#607

a85fe3d

aofaof0907 pushed a commit to aofaof0907/codeql-action that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2021

Recompile JS files to bring JS inline with TS for PR github#607

0fe70ea

aofaof0907 pushed a commit to aofaof0907/codeql-action that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2021

Recompile code after accepting suggestions from PR github#607 review

f06231b

aofaof0907 pushed a commit to aofaof0907/codeql-action that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2021

Clarify 'source-root' description to include default path

d4e735a

This addresses @adityasharad's suggestions in PR github#607.

aofaof0907 pushed a commit to aofaof0907/codeql-action that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2021

Test presence of database instead of results of analysis

0422c3b

This is for PR github#607, 'source-root' input test case.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add a 'source-root' input to the init Action #607

Add a 'source-root' input to the init Action #607

mario-campos commented Jun 29, 2021 •

edited

Loading

aibaars Jun 30, 2021

mario-campos Jun 30, 2021

aibaars left a comment

robertbrignull left a comment

robertbrignull commented Jun 30, 2021

aibaars commented Jun 30, 2021

robertbrignull commented Jun 30, 2021

aibaars commented Jun 30, 2021

aibaars commented Jun 30, 2021

mario-campos commented Jun 30, 2021

robertbrignull commented Jun 30, 2021

adityasharad left a comment

adityasharad Jul 1, 2021

mario-campos Jul 1, 2021

mario-campos commented Jul 1, 2021

adityasharad commented Jul 1, 2021

mario-campos commented Jul 1, 2021

adityasharad Jul 1, 2021

mario-campos Jul 1, 2021

adityasharad Jul 1, 2021

adityasharad left a comment

		@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@

		## [UNRELEASED]

		- The `init` step of the Action now supports a `source-root` input to be able to specify a path under the GitHub workspace to be the root source-code directory. [#607](https://github.com/github/codeql-action/pull/607)

Add a 'source-root' input to the init Action #607

Add a 'source-root' input to the init Action #607

Conversation

mario-campos commented Jun 29, 2021 • edited Loading

Merge / deployment checklist

aibaars Jun 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mario-campos Jun 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aibaars left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robertbrignull left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robertbrignull commented Jun 30, 2021

aibaars commented Jun 30, 2021

robertbrignull commented Jun 30, 2021

aibaars commented Jun 30, 2021

aibaars commented Jun 30, 2021

mario-campos commented Jun 30, 2021

robertbrignull commented Jun 30, 2021

adityasharad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adityasharad Jul 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mario-campos Jul 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mario-campos commented Jul 1, 2021

adityasharad commented Jul 1, 2021

mario-campos commented Jul 1, 2021

adityasharad Jul 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mario-campos Jul 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adityasharad Jul 1, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adityasharad left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mario-campos commented Jun 29, 2021 •

edited

Loading