LGTM deprecation: Update QL detective tutorials #11502
Conversation
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CodeQL found more than 10 potential problems in the proposed changes. Check the Files changed tab for more details.
|
Most of the code scanning alerts were about QLDoc style issues, which are not relevant for these example queries. I've dismissed those. However, there are some that suggest improvements to the queries. I'm not equipped to judge whether these alerts indicate action that we should take to improve the queries, or whether the queries are better suited to help people understand syntax as they currently are. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @felicitymay. Having the answers at the bottom of the article seems to work quite well. Approved pending a few updates to the 'Alternative solutions' section.
Co-authored-by: James Fletcher <42464962+jf205@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Thanks for the review @jf205. Are we happy to leave the remaining CodeQL alerts for now, or is there someone who might have time to have a look? |
These changes remove the reliance of the tutorials on LGTM.com's query console.
Internal PR raised to fix the check failure.