Skip to content

chore: set up manual CodeQL config for the repo, for nightly only#8110

Open
feywind wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
feywind-codeql-2
Open

chore: set up manual CodeQL config for the repo, for nightly only#8110
feywind wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
feywind-codeql-2

Conversation

@feywind
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@feywind feywind commented Apr 24, 2026

CodeQL takes too long to run on the whole repo for every CI action. The existing CodeQL config is removed in favour of a new manual one, which this PR adds.

Fixes b/499026637 🦕

@feywind feywind requested a review from a team as a code owner April 24, 2026 20:08
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Note

Gemini is unable to generate a review for this pull request due to the file types involved not being currently supported.

@github-advanced-security
Copy link
Copy Markdown

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

  • The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
  • Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
  • You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

@feywind
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

feywind commented Apr 27, 2026

I'm not fully convinced that this will shift away from PR checks entirely, but there's probably only one way to try it.

Comment thread .github/workflows/codeql.yml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/codeql.yml Outdated
- language: javascript-typescript
build-mode: none
- language: python
build-mode: none
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need python code analysis? I think we did have it before . . . but why? Just for owlbot.py?

AFAIK, the owlbot.py will be removed eventually as a part of the librarian migration. I suspect we can do without this?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, mostly for owlbot.py. I'm afraid those are going to be with us for a little while still, and since the previous config covered them (and they actually do things during build that could cause problems), we should probably keep covering them.

On the plus side, those checks take very little time or effort. TS-JS is the big one.

@pearigee
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Looking at the CI run for this PR, it still looks like the javascript-typescript analyzer check ran for a long time: "Successful in 299m"

Note, by inspecting the run, we can see that it was in fact running based on your new workflow file:
image

As a result, I don't think a merge is required to verify your improvments.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@pearigee pearigee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we verify the runtime improvements before merging?

@feywind
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

feywind commented Apr 28, 2026

Can we verify the runtime improvements before merging?

I messed up my branches, sorry. I'll bug you again when it's finished CI.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants