Address review comments for #3899#3904
Merged
mbg merged 6 commits intoMay 15, 2026
maingithub/codeql-action:mainfrom
mbg/esbuild/split-follow-upgithub/codeql-action:mbg/esbuild/split-follow-upCopy head branch name to clipboard
Merged
Address review comments for #3899#3904mbg merged 6 commits intomaingithub/codeql-action:mainfrom mbg/esbuild/split-follow-upgithub/codeql-action:mbg/esbuild/split-follow-upCopy head branch name to clipboard
mbg merged 6 commits into
maingithub/codeql-action:mainfrom
mbg/esbuild/split-follow-upgithub/codeql-action:mbg/esbuild/split-follow-upCopy head branch name to clipboard
Conversation
The tests still can't run in parallel so I had to change `test` to `test.serial`, which caused a bunch of formatting changes.
henrymercer
previously approved these changes
May 15, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Follow-up to #3899 to address review feedback by consolidating analyze-action input/env handling tests and making small documentation tweaks in the build script.
Changes:
- Consolidates the two standalone analyze-action tests into a single
src/analyze-action.test.tsusingtest.serial. - Removes the now-redundant
src/analyze-action-input.test.tsandsrc/analyze-action-env.test.ts. - Minor comment/string tweaks in
build.mjs(including adding a semicolon in generated import lines).
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| src/analyze-action.test.ts | Adds consolidated tests covering RAM/threads precedence (env vs action inputs). |
| src/analyze-action-input.test.ts | Removes prior standalone input-precedence test file (now covered in consolidated test). |
| src/analyze-action-env.test.ts | Removes prior standalone env-based test file (now covered in consolidated test). |
| build.mjs | Small comment cleanup and ensures generated import statements include semicolons. |
Copilot's findings
- Files reviewed: 4/4 changed files
- Comments generated: 1
henrymercer
approved these changes
May 15, 2026
This was referenced May 22, 2026
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Small follow-up to #3899 where there were a few review comments we decided to address in a follow-up.
Risk assessment
For internal use only. Please select the risk level of this change:
Which use cases does this change impact?
Workflow types:
dynamicworkflows (Default Setup, Code Quality, ...).Products:
analysis-kinds: code-scanning.analysis-kinds: code-quality.upload-sarifaction.Environments:
github.comand/or GitHub Enterprise Cloud with Data Residency.How did/will you validate this change?
.test.tsfiles).pr-checks).If something goes wrong after this change is released, what are the mitigation and rollback strategies?
How will you know if something goes wrong after this change is released?
Are there any special considerations for merging or releasing this change?
Merge / deployment checklist