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

Move to Node10, automate build & installation, add SARIF reports #93

Closed
wants to merge 40 commits into from

Conversation

JoostVoskuil
Copy link

@JoostVoskuil JoostVoskuil commented Dec 11, 2021

  • Automated the build process:
    • Create a public Azure DevOps project
    • Authorize Azure DevOps project to use this git repository
    • Update azure-pipelines.yml and set variable 'shareWith'. This is the Azure DevOps organisation to run your tests installations from
    • To make this work, the extension version is bumped to version 6.1
    • No need anymore to update both extension version and task version manually for patch versions
    • Removed manual build steps
  • Remove unused dependencies (package.json)
  • Removed unused typescript files
  • Bumped dependency versions of package.json
  • Update to node10 handler (Switch to Node10 Execution Handler #91)
  • tsconfig.json target from es6 to es2020
    • Made chagnes to dependency-check-build-task.ts to support this (removed undefined '?' for variablen)
  • Migrated file upload old vso console.out to tasklib upload method
  • Dependency-Check option format also supports SARIF reports. This change will provide the option to tell dependency-check to generate the report also in SARIF.
    • If we want nice reports in Azure DevOps with the SARIF SAST Scans Tab extension, the SARIF file must be uploaded to the 'CodeAnalysisLogs' artifact hence it is uploaded twice

@JoostVoskuil JoostVoskuil requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2021 18:06
@JoostVoskuil JoostVoskuil changed the title Add option to produce SARIF reports Move to Node10, automate build & installation, add SARIF reports Dec 12, 2021
Copy link
Collaborator

@ejohn20 ejohn20 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The material changes

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
name: '6.1$(rev:.r)'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not opposed to switching away from the classic pipelines, however I might need to work through this configuration with you all to make sure I understand how the dev -> prod workflow will work.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is quite easy. If you want we can have a zoom call and discuss this ;)

Copy link
Collaborator

@ejohn20 ejohn20 Dec 12, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@JoostVoskuil That would be helpful. I'm going to be tied up this week for the most part at a conference, would you be available the next week (12/20) to review?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @ejohn20 I have send you an email ;)

@ejohn20 ejohn20 changed the base branch from main to develop December 12, 2021 16:40
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.

4 participants