Skip to content
New issue

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

feat: add codeql scheduled cronjob #214

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sakshi-1505
Copy link

@sakshi-1505 sakshi-1505 commented Oct 15, 2023

refers #212

@sakshi-1505 sakshi-1505 requested a review from a team October 15, 2023 11:48
Signed-off-by: sakshi-1505 <[email protected]>
@sakshi-1505
Copy link
Author

@codeboten Please check this

Oberon00
Oberon00 previously approved these changes Oct 15, 2023
@Oberon00 Oberon00 dismissed their stale review October 15, 2023 16:51

Accidental approval

# │ │ │ │ │
# │ │ │ │ │
# * * * * *
- cron: '30 1 * * *'
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure we should have it periodically. Upon merge and on PRs should be sufficient.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I had been checking the other projects which are mark complete, they had cron schedule too. But I just read the advisory here open-telemetry/sig-security#15 & looks like we only need to merge & prs against main

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think a cron schedule is actually very useful. Often you will not introduce a security issue on merge, but it will pop up without code changes, simply because it is later discovered that it was already there but not known yet.

This is especially of interest if we don't merge anything for a while.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What should be the next step here folks?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@Oberon00 has a good point, feel free to keep the scheduled runs.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we get this approved then @jpkrohling

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@sakshi-1505 / @jpkrohling is this still relevant?

Copy link
Contributor

@jsuereth jsuereth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In practice, this project is actually split between three different projects (at least):

Semconv generator, Protobuf and CPP tooling.

I'm concerned about two things with this repo:

  1. Lack of attention from those named to own the repo (myself included)
  2. Very broad set of responsibilities across OTEL with true owners (e.g. CPP tooling) being a different SiG.

For now, would you be willing to do codeql analysis separately on each subdirectory so we get a different alert/error notification and direct to the "true" owners?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants