[Custom Engine Test] Test Pull Request - Custom Engine Safe Output #477
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
deleted the
test-safe-outputs-custom-engine/81f08db16cd78169
branch
github-actions bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2026
- Added explicit error handling on line 58 in extractMajorVersion function - Changed 'fmt.Sscanf()' call to '_, _ = fmt.Sscanf()' to explicitly ignore error - Consistent with existing pattern in lines 29 and 32 - Function intentionally defaults to 0 for non-numeric version parts - Satisfies gosec G104 security check 🤖 Generated with Claude Code Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
pelikhan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2026
github-actions bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2026
…mver.go Fix for CodeQL/gosec alert #477 - G104 (Errors unhandled) Added #nosec G104 comment to properly suppress gosec warning on line 58 in extractMajorVersion function. The Sscanf error is intentionally ignored as the function is designed to default to 0 for non-numeric version parts (e.g., "beta", "alpha"), which is documented behavior. Changes: - Added #nosec G104 directive with detailed security justification - No functional changes to the code behavior - Build verification passed successfully 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Jan 6, 2026
Merged
github-actions bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2026
…ing in semver.go Fix for security alert #477 (G104 - Unhandled error) The gosec scanner was flagging an unhandled error from fmt.Sscanf on line 59. The error is intentionally ignored as the function defaults to 0 for non-numeric version parts, which is the desired behavior documented in the function comment. Changes: - Moved #nosec G104 directive from line 58 to be inline on line 59 - This properly suppresses the gosec warning while maintaining code clarity The inline placement is the recommended approach as it clearly associates the suppression with the specific code being flagged. Ref: https://github.com/githubnext/gh-aw/security/code-scanning/477
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Test Pull Request - Custom Engine Safe Output
This pull request was automatically created by the test-safe-outputs-custom-engine workflow to validate the create-pull-request safe output functionality.
Changes Made
Test Information
This PR can be merged or closed after verification of the safe output functionality.