Add logging statements declaring state of the cli_config_file_enabled #1281
Conversation
src/analyze.ts
Outdated
|
|
||
| if (await util.useCodeScanningConfigInCli(codeql, featureFlags)) { | ||
| logger.info( | ||
| "Code Scanning configuration file being processed in the codeql-action." |
It's possible to determine this otherwise, but this makes it easier to spot.
aeisenberg
force-pushed
the
aeisenberg/cli-config-processing
branch
from
f8605b9 to
6ace05b
Compare
|
Oh...need to change how the query filters tests work. Some of them are explicitly expecting the config to be processed by the action and others the CLI. I will need to change how the env var is working for them. Edit: Hmmm...the error message is a little more worrying. Maybe there's something really wrong here. |
The user config parser in the CLI doesn't yet support it.
aeisenberg
force-pushed
the
aeisenberg/cli-config-processing
branch
from
1861036 to
59fbe34
Compare
src/util.ts
Outdated
| @@ -817,6 +817,22 @@ export async function useCodeScanningConfigInCli( | |||
| return await codeQlVersionAbove(codeql, CODEQL_VERSION_CONFIG_FILES); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| export async function logCodeScanningConfgInCli( | |||
aeisenberg
force-pushed
the
aeisenberg/cli-config-processing
branch
from
b73c507 to
5960ce1
Compare
| await logCodeScanningConfigInCli(codeQL, featureFlags, logger); | ||
|
|
||
| if (!(await useCodeScanningConfigInCli(codeQL, featureFlags))) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will hit the feature flags endpoint twice right? (And I think we don't attempt to add cache parameters to the API requests.) Can we make it call only once? Not sure of the cleanest way; perhaps the logCodeScanningConfigInCli function should just accept the boolean result of the use function, without calling use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm...you're right. Feature flags values are not being cached. Rather than implementing a workaround for useCodeScanningConfigInCli only, I think it makes more sense to simply add the caching (it's not too much code).
What do you think about my doing this in a separate PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait!!!! It's a little bit hidden, but the response is cached: https://github.com/aeisenberg/codeql-action/blob/5960ce11900cc253a1ac219eb7cd41769b00cebf/src/feature-flags.ts#L98-L99
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh fancy! Nothing to worry about then.
Minor change to insert a log statement to keep track of the new feature flag. It's possible to determine this otherwise, but this makes it easier to spot.
Also, Avoid using single value as array
The user config parser in the CLI doesn't yet support it.