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

[master] Better config for CodeQL analysis #1160

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 26, 2021

Conversation

artem-smotrakov
Copy link
Contributor

@artem-smotrakov artem-smotrakov commented May 26, 2021

Updates:

  • Set Java and Maven version in the LGTM config. For some reason, jobs on LGTM still fail because Maven Enforcer complains about Maven version. Maybe it's a bug in LGTM. To overcome this, -Denforcer.skip has been added to the build command. LGTM uses Maven 3.6.0 by default that works for EclipseLink.
  • Updated the CodeQL workflow to analyse pull requests against all branches, not only master.

Java build passes with the updated config:

https://lgtm.com/logs/6866d0b9a7d8f2f98e882d4e5a0115c8d1efab85/lang:java

Fixes #1159

Signed-off-by: Artem Smotrakov artem.smotrakov@gmail.com

@artem-smotrakov artem-smotrakov force-pushed the configure-codeql branch 2 times, most recently from 2e17556 to 9253065 Compare May 26, 2021 08:07
pull_request:
# The branches below must be a subset of the branches above
branches: [master]
branches: *
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

keep only master; there are different configs needed for other versions (3.0 and 2.7 require Java SE 8 for build; CodeQL would be nice to have there; 2.6 (and older) should be completely excluded)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Okay, I'll add configs for 3.0 and 2.7.

2.6 (and older) should be completely excluded

Are they not supported any more?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

note that 2.x do use ant for the build (see ie travis config in the branch or specific build instructions)

for 2.6 and older there is only very limited support; it does not make sense to consume too much resources for that these days

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

note that 2.x do use ant for the build (see ie travis config in the branch or specific build instructions)

Hope CodeQL can work with Ant.

for 2.6 and older there is only very limited support; it does not make sense to consume too much resources for that these days

Agree. Would it still make sense to fix severe security issues if CodeQL finds them in 2.6 and older?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

those would be present in master/3.0 and 2.7 as well. Everything going to 2.6 must go through newer versions first.

Signed-off-by: Artem Smotrakov <artem.smotrakov@gmail.com>
@lukasj lukasj merged commit e80026b into eclipse-ee4j:master May 26, 2021
@artem-smotrakov artem-smotrakov deleted the configure-codeql branch May 26, 2021 08:52
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.

Better config for CodeQL analysis
2 participants