| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The previous single-job approach with a 4-shard matrix caused PRs to
spin up 4 identical runners all building the same changed files.
Split into two jobs:
- analyze-pr: runs only on pull_request, single runner, builds changed
samples via Build-ChangedSamples.ps1. No shard matrix overhead.
- analyze: runs on push/schedule, 4-shard matrix, each shard builds its
slice of all samples. Also drops the now-unnecessary 'get-changed-files'
step from the push path.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
|
|
GitHub Actions expressions don't support arithmetic operators so
'matrix.shard + 1' was invalid. Switch the matrix to [1, 2, 3, 4]
so the job name, step name, and log output all read '1 of 4' through
'4 of 4'. The PowerShell script subtracts 1 locally for the 0-based
slice math.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
|
|
- Job name and step name now show '1 of 4' through '4 of 4' (shard+1)
instead of '0' through '3 of 4' which looked like an off-by-one bug
- Move build-mode back into the matrix (was there before sharding) so it
remains explicit and consistent with the original workflow structure
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
|
|
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
|
|
Split samples alphabetically into 4 equal shards using ListAllSamples.ps1
and run each on a separate machine in parallel. ThrottleLimit stays 1 per
shard for accurate CodeQL tracing. Each shard uploads SARIF with a
distinct category (shard-0..shard-3) so results merge in the Security tab.
On PRs the existing Build-ChangedSamples behavior is preserved (no sharding
needed since only changed files are built).
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
|
|
Build-AllSamples.ps1 was removed in favor of Build-Samples.ps1.
Co-authored-by: Copilot <[email protected]>
|
|
* Update Code-Scanning.yml to use latest windows-drivers pack
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml: reduce duplacate code
|
|
* update workflow files to split codeql analysis for push and PR
* test changing a file
* remove build all option in script for testing.
* Revert "remove build all option in script for testing."
This reverts commit 04eb2c34aac69545b56ff86b6d642e453bde89f0.
* Revert "test changing a file"
This reverts commit d69205126f62ad44af4c5e3b64f1f14637116ea2.
* combine pr and push analysis files to remove warning about not having on.push trigger. include script changes and file change for testing
* remove test changes
|
|
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
|
|
* Deprecate WDK vsix install
* Fix WDK extension version print
* Remove unecessary splitting on version
* Minor build info refactor
* Fix indentation of output info
* Enough messing with volume size output
* Cleanup comment for vsix version
* More cleanup and doc update
* Remove deprecation statement and install vsix script.
* Fixes and updates to building locally documentation.
* Dont code scan on license or .md files.
* Code scanning ignore changes to .md when pull request is made
|
|
* Memory leakage in message
"sizeof(SCANNER_MESSAGE) * threadCount * requestCount" bytes long memory is allocated but only "sizeof(SCANNER_MESSAGE) * threadCount" bytes long of it is freed.
* Handles malloc function fail case
* Refactors comment line
* Solves the miscalculation of the message index
* simbatt: Fix broken registry read-back
The GetSimBattStateFromRegistry function is currently using default settings if GetSimBattStateFromRegistry succeeds, whereas settings from registry are only applied if GetSimBattStateFromRegistry fails. This does not make sense to me.
Therefore proposing to remove the `!` negation from `if (!NT_SUCCESS(Status)) {` on the line after `Status = GetSimBattStateFromRegistry(Device, RegState);` so that default settings are loaded when registry read-back fails.
* Issue of freeing memory without waiting completion of threads accessing it is fixed
* Fixes information leakage warning
Fixes the issue of possible information leakage from uninitialized padding bytes
* Avoids possible multiplication overflow warning
* Avoids possible multiplication overflow warning
* CI Pipelines build with WDK Nuget Packages (#1179)
Integrate nuget into the workflow pipelines
* FI from main to develop (#1188)
Fix text and minor issues in Winget configuration files
Co-authored-by: Adonais Romero Gonzalez <[email protected]>
* Improve version info, vsix installation, and update building locally readme
* Fix printing vsix version
* Refactored vsix install and cleaned up build sampleset
---------
Co-authored-by: İsa Yurdagül <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Fredrik Orderud <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Christian Allred <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: tristanb-ntdev <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Matt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Adonais Romero Gonzalez <[email protected]>
|
|
* Update Code-Scanning.yml actions/checkout to v4 and microsoft/setup-msbuild to v2
* Update ci-pr.yml to use node20
* Update ci.yml to use node20
|
|
* test code scanning with new package
* update code scanning file. test without building
* fix typo
* add back build step
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
* Update Code-Scanning.yml
|
|
|
|
workflow. (#883)
user-jakobl-codeql-submodules
|
|
Enable CodeQL to work thru reasonable workarounds. (#857)
|
|
|
|
---------
Co-authored-by: Jakob Lichtenberg (170957) <[email protected]>
|
|
Remove capture of changed files as they are unneeded in this workflow. We will build all files to create a baseline.
|
|
In accordance with this issue https://github.com/github/codeql-cli-binaries/issues/149 I have reconfigured to run code scanning on all PR's (to include text only changes) and adjusted the build command to build all solutions, not just the changed ones.
|
|
Excludes all files within the .github directory from triggering the Code Scanning workflow.
|
|
This file is identical to the existing workflow except that it has been created via the GitHub Security Code Scanning menu, which registers the workflow with the Code Scanning triggers unlike the existing workflow. If this successfully meets the Security requirements, the next commit will remove the duplicate workflow.
|
