checkmarx-ts / checkmarx-cxflow-github-action

Checkmarx CxFlow GitHub Action with SARIF output
GNU General Public License v3.0
52 stars 53 forks source link

Feature Request: Optional Parameter to Reduce Email Notifications for Checkmarx Scan Comments #78

Closed leinardi closed 5 months ago

leinardi commented 5 months ago

Description

To minimize unnecessary email notifications sent to all subscribers of a Pull Request, it would be beneficial to introduce an optional parameter that can:

1. Suppress the generation of the "Scan submitted to Checkmarx" comment. (can be already achieved with --github.ScanSubmittedComment=false)

  1. Prevent the creation of the "Scan Summary & Details" comment when no violations are found.

Current Behavior:

Under the current implementation, two emails are sent each time these comments are created by the Action, regardless of whether any action is required. This results in redundant notifications that clutter the inboxes of PR subscribers.

Proposed Solution:

Add an optional parameter to control the generation of these comments, thereby reducing unnecessary email notifications and improving the user experience.

Thank you for considering this enhancement.

richard-grainger-veeva commented 5 months ago

You can already prevent "scan submitted" noise on Github PRs with parameter --github.ScanSubmittedComment=false added to params (1 above). What we need is 2: "Prevent the creation of the "Scan Summary & Details" comment when no violations are found."

Thanks!

satyamchaurasiapersistent commented 5 months ago

Please use --github.ScanSubmittedComment=false to turnoff comments.

leinardi commented 5 months ago

Hi @satyamchaurasiapersistent, as @richard-grainger-veeva explained, that is addressing only half of the issue (suppressing the "Scan submitted to Checkmarx" comment): we still need to have a way to:

  1. Prevent the creation of the "Scan Summary & Details" comment when no violations are found.

Can you please re-open the issue?

richard-grainger-veeva commented 5 months ago

@satyamchaurasiapersistent

Yes, this is not resolved. Please re-open!

leinardi commented 5 months ago

I have created #79 to address the point number 2 specifically.