github / codeql-action

Actions for running CodeQL analysis
MIT License
1.12k stars 310 forks source link

Add option `tools: linked` for `tools` input of init action. #2281

Closed NlightNFotis closed 3 months ago

NlightNFotis commented 3 months ago

Description

The init action supports an input tools, which can get a range of values, including a special value latest that is supposed to force the use of the bundled version of CodeQL for the action.

The use of the word latest, however, might hint to users that this is really fetching the newest version of CodeQL, rather than the one associated with the action when it was released.

This PR is adding an option tools: linked that is functionally equivalent to tools: latest, but is supposed to guide user expectations as to the version that's actually used.

Review Guidance

Still outstanding

Merge / deployment checklist

aeisenberg commented 3 months ago

Once this is done, we will also need to update the documentation in docs-internal. Though, I took a quick look and I can't find any reference to the tools input. Is this even documented there? The init action file contains a link to some documentation, but that page doesn't mention tools anywhere.

https://github.com/github/codeql-action/blob/main/init/action.yml#L17

For now, maybe we just need to update this input description with the new change and remove the link.

Then later, we should update the docs-internal with a full description of tools.

NlightNFotis commented 3 months ago

Very nice! Could you update the docs for tools in init/action.yml too?

Yes, this is my plan before the end of the ticket as a whole. I was originally thinking of doing this as part of a seperate PR that's designed to specifically address the issue in https://github.com/github/codeql-action/issues/1327.

Will raise this soon - unless there's a preference to address this in this PR? I was thinking that a separate PR will be cleaner, and can afford being more focused on drafting a good general documentation for tools, without being subjected to the review cycle/scope of this PR. Any thoughts?

henrymercer commented 3 months ago

It's not currently documented, so I'm happy with a separate PR if you prefer!

NlightNFotis commented 3 months ago

Apologies, I had to force push a rebase because of some issues with the CHANGELOG. What has changed in 5a08657:

NlightNFotis commented 3 months ago

Hi @henrymercer, this is now ready for another round of reviews.