Include diagnostics in failed SARIF if they were created before a database was initialised by mbg · Pull Request #4223 · github/codeql-action · GitHub

Diagnostics are typically written to the database cluster and are then included in the SARIF that is generated by the CLI. However, in the CodeQL Action we may produce diagnostics before the database cluster is initialised. To work around this, we have so far relied on tracking diagnostics in memory that were created before the database cluster is ready. After the cluster is initialised, those diagnostics are then flushed to disk. However, this represents a problem if the database cluster is never successfully initialised.

This PR changes this so that diagnostics are written directly to a temporary directory on disk if the database cluster is not yet ready. They are then moved to the database cluster once it is initialised. If the cluster is never initialised, then we point the CLI at the temporary directory on disk using a --diagnostic-dir argument. The CLI will then pick up any diagnostics that are still in that location and include them in the failed SARIF.

Risk assessment

For internal use only. Please select the risk level of this change:

Low risk: Changes are fully under feature flags, or have been fully tested and validated in pre-production environments and are highly observable, or are documentation or test only.

Which use cases does this change impact?

Workflow types:

Advanced setup - Impacts users who have custom CodeQL workflows.
Managed - Impacts users with dynamic workflows (Default Setup, Code Quality, ...).

Products:

Code Scanning - The changes impact analyses when analysis-kinds: code-scanning.
Code Quality - The changes impact analyses when analysis-kinds: code-quality.
Other first-party - The changes impact other first-party analyses.

Environments:

Dotcom - Impacts CodeQL workflows on github.com and/or GitHub Enterprise Cloud with Data Residency.
GHES - Impacts CodeQL workflows on GitHub Enterprise Server.

How did/will you validate this change?

Unit tests - I am depending on unit test coverage (i.e. tests in .test.ts files).
End-to-end tests - I am depending on PR checks (i.e. tests in pr-checks).

If something goes wrong after this change is released, what are the mitigation and rollback strategies?

Rollback - Change can only be disabled by rolling back the release or releasing a new version with a fix.

How will you know if something goes wrong after this change is released?

Telemetry - I rely on existing telemetry or have made changes to the telemetry.
- Dashboards - I will watch relevant dashboards for issues after the release. Consider whether this requires this change to be released at a particular time rather than as part of a regular release.
- Alerts - New or existing monitors will trip if something goes wrong with this change.

Are there any special considerations for merging or releasing this change?

No special considerations - This change can be merged at any time.

Merge / deployment checklist

Confirm this change is backwards compatible with existing workflows.
Consider adding a changelog entry for this change.
Confirm the readme and docs have been updated if necessary.

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.

🟡 Changes recommended

Temporary-write failures can abort initialization, cross-filesystem moves can lose diagnostics, and the new check does not validate failed SARIF export.

5 open findings

Test does not verify failed-SARIF diagnostic export · New
Best-effort diagnostics can make init fail on filesystem errors · New
Cross-filesystem diagnostic moves lack an EXDEV fallback · New
Spelling correction · New
Documentation typo · New

What changed in this PR

Persists pre-database diagnostics on disk so they can be included in failed SARIF output.

Changes:

Replaces in-memory buffering with temporary diagnostic files.
Passes temporary diagnostics to CodeQL export.
Adds unit and PR-check coverage.

File	Description
src/diagnostics.ts	Implements temporary persistence and database relocation.
src/init-action.ts	Flushes and logs temporary diagnostics.
src/init-action-post-helper.ts	Supplies temporary diagnostics during failed SARIF generation.
src/codeql.ts	Adds --diagnostic-dir support.
src/diagnostics.test.ts	Tests temporary persistence and flushing.
src/setup-codeql.test.ts	Provides temporary-directory test setup.
src/config/db-config.test.ts	Provides temporary-directory test setup.
pr-checks/diagnostics-without-db.ts	Checks for the expected diagnostic file.
pr-checks/checks/diagnostics-without-db.yml	Defines the new PR check.
lib/entry-points.js	Generated bundle; excluded from review.
.github/workflows/__diagnostics-without-db.yml	Generated workflow; excluded from review.

Files excluded by content exclusion policy (2)

.github/workflows/__diagnostics-without-db.yml
lib/entry-points.js

🧠 Review effort: Balanced

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

🟢 Approval recommended

The focused diagnostic-persistence changes have unit and integration coverage, with no unresolved blocking findings.

1 open issue

Keep configuration lookup lazy for single-file SARIF uploads

2 files not reviewed

.github/workflows/__diagnostics-without-db.yml: Excluded by your content exclusion settings
lib/entry-points.js: Excluded by your content exclusion settings

Review effort: Balanced

Thanks for addressing my comments, just a couple of final things before we merge this.

I think this has introduced a new issue: language-specific diagnostics which are created after the config is initialized, but before the DB is created, now don't get picked up because they live in ${tempDiagnosticsRootDir}/${language}/diagnostic/codeql-action, but init-post passes --diagnostic-dir=${tempDiagnosticsRootDir}/diagnostic/codeql-action.

We could modify init post to pass --diagnostic-dir=${tempDiagnosticsRootDir}. It might also be good to add a regression test.

🔵 Needs a closer look

Cross-step persistence and CLI export need human validation, particularly the uncovered database-initialization failure path that skips failed-SARIF generation.

2 open issues

3 files not reviewed

.github/workflows/__diagnostics-without-db.yml: Excluded by your content exclusion settings
.github/workflows/__submit-sarif-failure.yml: Excluded by your content exclusion settings
lib/entry-points.js: Excluded by your content exclusion settings

Review effort: Max

I think we can leave this for follow up.

…d-sarif

mbg changed the base branch from main to mbg/fs-abstraction October 9, 2026 22:30

mbg added this pull request to stack #4224 October 9, 2026 22:30

github-actions Bot added the size/L May be hard to review label Oct 9, 2026

mbg force-pushed the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch 2 times, most recently from 520eff7 to 2613b9c Compare October 9, 2026 22:51

github-actions Bot added size/XL May be very hard to review and removed size/L May be hard to review labels Oct 12, 2026

mbg removed this pull request from stack #4224 October 12, 2026 11:00

mbg mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2026

Store and restore "failed" configuration if init step aborts #4225

Merged

mbg force-pushed the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch from b5ce898 to 9312ede Compare October 12, 2026 11:54

mbg changed the base branch from mbg/fs-abstraction to mbg/reduce-config-requirements October 12, 2026 11:54

github-actions Bot added size/L May be hard to review and removed size/XL May be very hard to review labels Oct 12, 2026

mbg force-pushed the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch from 9312ede to 65d8aa4 Compare October 12, 2026 12:02

mbg force-pushed the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch from 65d8aa4 to 9eeab46 Compare October 12, 2026 13:23

mbg marked this pull request as ready for review October 12, 2026 13:24

mbg requested a review from a team as a code owner October 12, 2026 13:24

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 12, 2026 13:24

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of mbg October 12, 2026 13:25

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Oct 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread pr-checks/checks/diagnostics-without-db.yml Outdated

Comment thread src/diagnostics.ts Outdated

Comment thread src/diagnostics.ts

Comment thread pr-checks/checks/diagnostics-without-db.yml Outdated

Comment thread src/diagnostics.ts Outdated

mbg added this pull request to stack #4227 October 12, 2026 13:49

mbg force-pushed the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch from 4b32487 to 9104ff3 Compare October 12, 2026 16:51

github-actions Bot added size/XL May be very hard to review and removed size/L May be hard to review labels Oct 12, 2026

Base automatically changed from mbg/reduce-config-requirements to main October 13, 2026 09:46

mbg force-pushed the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch 3 times, most recently from 3cf39b0 to b5557b8 Compare October 16, 2026 11:23

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of mbg October 21, 2026 14:23

View session

Clarify comment that explains how the test works

c3f2a34

Copilot AI reviewed Oct 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

henrymercer reviewed Oct 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

mbg added 5 commits October 22, 2026 10:30

Improve logging and error handling in logTemporaryDiagnostics

26f5c5e

Only warn for missing config if init was successful

308d941

Clean up path functions in diagnostics.ts and add some tests

b79966a

Merge branch 'main' into mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif

2d0d1c1

Merge branch 'main' into mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif

ac509b6

mbg requested review from henrymercer and a max review from Copilot October 22, 2026 10:52

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of mbg October 22, 2026 10:52

View session

Copilot AI reviewed Oct 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

henrymercer previously approved these changes Oct 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

Improve wording to address review feedback

87da5f3

mbg dismissed henrymercer’s stale review via 87da5f3 October 22, 2026 12:50

mbg requested a review from henrymercer October 22, 2026 12:50

henrymercer previously approved these changes Oct 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

mbg enabled stacked auto-merge October 22, 2026 12:53

mbg added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 22, 2026

github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a conflict with the base branch Oct 22, 2026

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into mbg/diagnostics/faile…

5196bae

…d-sarif

mbg dismissed henrymercer’s stale review via 5196bae October 22, 2026 13:24

mbg requested a review from henrymercer October 22, 2026 13:25

henrymercer approved these changes Oct 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

mbg enabled stacked auto-merge October 22, 2026 13:33

mbg added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 22, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 0acb923 Oct 22, 2026
230 checks passed

mbg deleted the mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif branch October 22, 2026 13:53

                   return;
                 } finally {
-                  logUnwrittenDiagnostics();
+                  logTemporaryDiagnostics(actionState);

                   return;
                 } finally {
-                  logUnwrittenDiagnostics();
+                  logTemporaryDiagnostics(actionState);

+                if (language !== undefined) {
+                  return path.resolve(basePath, language, "diagnostic", "codeql-action");
+                }
+                return basePath;

Include diagnostics in failed SARIF if they were created before a database was initialised by mbg · Pull Request #4223 · github/codeql-action · GitHub

Repository navigation

Include diagnostics in failed SARIF if they were created before a database was initialised - #4223

Include diagnostics in failed SARIF if they were created before a database was initialised#4223mbg merged 21 commits intomaingithub/codeql-action:mainfrom mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarifgithub/codeql-action:mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarifCopy head branch name to clipboard

Conversation

mbg commented Oct 9, 2026

Risk assessment

Which use cases does this change impact?

How did/will you validate this change?

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

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟡 Changes recommended

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🟢 Approval recommended

Uh oh!

henrymercer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

henrymercer Oct 21, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

🔵 Needs a closer look

Uh oh!

henrymercer Oct 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

henrymercer Oct 22, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Include diagnostics in failed SARIF if they were created before a database was initialised#4223
mbg merged 21 commits into
mainfrom
mbg/diagnostics/failed-sarif