You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It isn't possible to determine which PRs passed or failed according to CI-Tests, Code-Review or SAST checks. This is unfortunate because projects with "unusual" setups frequently get less than a 10/10 for reasons that aren't entirely clear. For example, google/guava (API results) gets a 9/10 because only 28/30 PRs counted as reviewed. Given the project's unusual setup (using a bot to force-push commits to main instead of merging PRs), it's hard to diagnose what happened to the 2 missing PRs.
Describe the solution you'd like
Information on passing and failing PRs should be displayed whenever these checks are run with --show-details. It is my understanding that none of these checks currently use the details field, so there should be minimal risk of disrupting dependencies.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am interested in implementing this feature.
@ossf/scorecard-maintainers: Could you please assign this issue to me If no one else has volunteered? I would love the opportunity to take on this task and work towards its successful implementation.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It isn't possible to determine which PRs passed or failed according to CI-Tests, Code-Review or SAST checks. This is unfortunate because projects with "unusual" setups frequently get less than a 10/10 for reasons that aren't entirely clear. For example, google/guava (API results) gets a 9/10 because only 28/30 PRs counted as reviewed. Given the project's unusual setup (using a bot to force-push commits to main instead of merging PRs), it's hard to diagnose what happened to the 2 missing PRs.
Describe the solution you'd like
Information on passing and failing PRs should be displayed whenever these checks are run with
--show-details
. It is my understanding that none of these checks currently use thedetails
field, so there should be minimal risk of disrupting dependencies.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: