add documentation on ignores #46
Conversation
docs/running-rules.md
Outdated
| @@ -31,7 +31,9 @@ $ semgrep -e '$X == $X' --lang=py path/to/src | |||
| $ semgrep --config path/to/yaml | |||
| ``` | |||
|
|
|||
| # Managing findings | |||
| # Ignoring findings | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
n.b. - we'll need to add redirects for the docs before merging title changes (because they are used in existing links)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sadly we cannot use redirects here, because any content after the # is not passed to the server. Thoughts on how to handle? IMO this is an argument for having more pages rather than fewer pages with lots of local anchor # links.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A crude way would just be to add an HTML element to catch that link and place it right next to the updated header. Something like: <div id="managing-findings"></div>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point @pabloest . I ended up just putting the header back in but linking ignore findings.
I think we should keep plenty of info in the semgrep action readme because it is auto-shown on the GitHub marketplace page: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/semgrep-action I agree on the ignoring findings thing. |
| @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Explore the Semgrep docs and join an amazing community of engineering and securi | |||
| - [Running rules](running-rules.md) | |||
| - [Managing CI policy](managing-policy.md) | |||
| - [Integrations](integrations.md) | |||
| - [Experiments](experiments.md) | |||
| - [Experiments](experiments) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What led to this change? Did the link not work before? 😬
| semgrep-core/tests/ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| For a complete example, see [the .semgrepignore on the Semgrep source code itself](https://github.com/returntocorp/semgrep/blob/develop/.semgrepignore). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: use ` around .semgrepignore for consistency with rest of text.
@dlukeomalley -- after this lands we can move a lot of the semgrep action readme to just point here
@pabloest -- do you think "Ignoring Findings" should be its own, top-level section? I think that's a good idea