| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityWhat if someone writes an Actions workflow that explicitly downloads and invokes codeql-runner-linux64? In that case I think we should announce ourselves as the runner even though $GITHUB_ACTIONS also happens to be set.
I feel it would be more robust simply to have a global flag that runner.ts sets early on.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityIs there a use case for why someone would do this?
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityHenning is right. We do it in this repo for integration testing the runner!
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityThe way we handle behaviour differences between the action and runner currently is by passing a mode parameter around. While I admit that's not a perfect solution, it would probably be cleaner to use that instead of introducing a new mechanism for telling if we should behave like the action or the runner. This would also solve the problem Henning mentions. If you want to then simplify to using a flag set in the environment instead of an explicit function parameter you could then do everything at once (there's also a CodeQL query that checks this info that would need changing).
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low QualityImplemented this idea here #516.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.