FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

Use `json` module for JSON validation in `output-cache` by mario-campos · Pull Request #4096 · github/codeql-action · GitHub

/ codeql-action Public

Use json module for JSON validation in output-cache - #4096

Open
mario-campos wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
mario-campos/use-json-module
ConversationCommits (9)ChecksFiles changed
Open

Use json module for JSON validation in output-cache#4096
mario-campos wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
mario-campos/use-json-module

Conversation

mario-campos commented Aug 14, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • Use the included json module to improve (make more readable) the validation of the output of codeql version.
  • Refactor getCachedCodeQlVersion and cacheCodeQlVersion to accept the cache-file-path as an argument, rather than construct it; this makes it easier to test.
  • Change the VersionInfo type to be derived from its JSON schema.

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.

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.
    • 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.

mario-campos requested review from mbg and a balanced review from Copilot August 14, 2026 04:19
mario-campos requested a review from a team as a code owner August 14, 2026 04:19
github-actions Bot added the size/S Should be easy to review label Aug 14, 2026
mario-campos force-pushed the mario-campos/use-json-module branch from 1a0c458 to 93d793c Compare August 14, 2026 04:19
Copilot AI reviewed Aug 14, 2026
View reviewed changes

Copilot AI left a comment

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.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Pull request overview

Refactors output-cache validation to use shared JSON schema utilities.

Changes:

  • Validates version information using JSON schemas.
  • Validates cache entries before accessing the cached version.
Show a summary per file
File Description
src/cli/output-cache.ts Replaces manual checks with shared JSON validators.

Review details

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

  • Files reviewed: 1/2 changed files
  • Comments generated: 1
  • Review effort level: Balanced

Comment thread src/cli/output-cache.ts Outdated
mbg reviewed Aug 14, 2026
View reviewed changes

mbg left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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 Quality

Looks OK, but a good catch from Copilot there that we missed on the previous PR. I also added a comment about avoiding the disconnect between the schema and VersionInfo type. When using the json module for schemas, it is desirable to derive the corresponding type with FromSchema to avoid them going out of sync.

Comment thread src/cli/output-cache.ts Outdated
Comment thread src/cli/output-cache.ts Outdated
mbg reviewed Aug 14, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread src/cli/types.ts Outdated
Comment thread src/cli/output-cache.test.ts Outdated

mbg commented Aug 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mario-campos Also looks like the linter check is failing again. If you haven't already enabled editor.formatOnSave, that might be a useful thing to do to help prevent this.

github-actions Bot added size/M Should be of average difficulty to review and removed size/S Should be easy to review labels Aug 14, 2026

mario-campos commented Aug 14, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Also looks like the linter check is failing again.

That was a downstream (in tools-feature.ts) effect of the changes made to VersionInfo. It resulted in VersionInfo.features having type any, despite the override. Copilot suggested using Omit<> to fix it, so I did.

That being said, I wonder if it would be better to define a JSON validator for VersionInfo.features such that we can derive VersionInfo directly from its schema?

mario-campos requested a review from mbg August 19, 2026 18:29
mario-campos mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2026
Closed
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
Show hidden characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

Copilot code review Copilot
Copilot review effort
Applies to this pull request for everyone.Learn more about Copilot code review.
Copilot left review comments
mbg Awaiting requested review from mbg

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

size/M Should be of average difficulty to review

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL