Repository navigation
Conversation
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Warning
- Copilot's review of this pull request may be incomplete because some of the changed files are excluded by your Copilot content exclusion settings. See Excluding content from Copilot for details.
🔵 Needs a closer look
Cross-action upload behavior needs human validation, including an unresolved processing-wait inconsistency.
1 open finding
What changed in this PR
Improves failed-SARIF testing and logging, preparing init-post to handle diagnostics from aborted initialization.
Changes:
- Separates failed-SARIF generation and upload controls, including explicit
falseoverrides. - Propagates configuration through SARIF processing.
- Adds test-mode artifacts and upload-aware processing waits.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| src/util.ts | Adds independent generation and upload controls. |
| src/util.test.ts | Tests skip settings and overrides. |
| src/upload-sarif.ts | Forwards configuration to post-processing. |
| src/upload-sarif.test.ts | Updates mocks and configuration assertions. |
| src/upload-sarif-action.ts | Loads configuration for CLI reuse. |
| src/upload-lib.ts | Uses supplied configuration and skips waits when uploads are disabled. |
| src/init-action-post.ts | Logs aborted-configuration fallback. |
| src/init-action-post-helper.ts | Separates generation controls and adds testing artifacts. |
| src/init-action-post-helper.test.ts | Checks configuration forwarding. |
| src/environment.ts | Defines the generation-skip setting. |
| src/analyze-action.ts | Passes configuration into SARIF processing. |
Files excluded by content exclusion policy (1)
- lib/entry-points.js
🧠 Review effort: Max
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
Comment on lines
+708
to
+709
| skipSarifUpload !== "false" && | ||
| (env.isSkippingUploadsInTests() || skipSarifUpload === "true") |
This branch has not been deployed
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
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.

Cherry-picked changes from #4223 which primarily improve our ability to test the failed SARIF upload process in
init-post. These changes are in prep for #4223 to make them easier to review, but aren't all used here yet. The main changes here are:shouldSkipSarifUploadis now divided up between it and a newshouldSkipGenerateFailedSarif. To maintain backwards compatibility,shouldSkipSarifUploadimpliesshouldSkipGenerateFailedSarifby default.falserather than just explicitly set totrue.shouldSkipGenerateFailedSarifnow guards whether the failed SARIF is generated rather thanshouldSkipSarifUpload. This allows us to generate the failed SARIF, but not upload it. Previously not uploading it implied not generating it.combineSarifFilesUsingCLIwas callinggetConfigitself, which made it oblivious to the new failed configuration file that was introduced in Store and restore "failed" configuration ifinitstep aborts #4225. This is changed so that theConfigis propagated to it from higher up in the call hierarchy.Risk assessment
For internal use only. Please select the risk level of this change:
Which use cases does this change impact?
Workflow types:
dynamicworkflows (Default Setup, Code Quality, ...).Products:
analysis-kinds: code-scanning.analysis-kinds: code-quality.upload-sarifaction.Environments:
github.comand/or GitHub Enterprise Cloud with Data Residency.How did/will you validate this change?
.test.tsfiles).pr-checks).If something goes wrong after this change is released, what are the mitigation and rollback strategies?
How will you know if something goes wrong after this change is released?
Are there any special considerations for merging or releasing this change?
Merge / deployment checklist