[cmd] parse extends sarif output with extra fields#4925
Open
andyg32 wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
There are a few fields in the SARIF specification which would be meaningful to be filled out, but today are not generated into the exported files.
CodeChecker parsealready populates Report objects with review status information, but currently only JSON export makes use of it. This PR addssuppressionobjects to individual results in the SARIF file, according to the spec, including suppression source (source code comment or review config file) and justification message.location.physicalLocationmay be added in a follow-up PR.SARIF
rules[](~checkers) are extended withdefaultConfiguration.levelandhelpUrifields (spec), corresponding to theseverityanddoc_urlchecker labels in CodeChecker config.Note that this only applies to the
CodeChecker parsecommand at the moment, which has the analyzer context (including aCheckerLabelobject) readily available. Doing the same for the standalone report-converter is an orthogonal task, and might entail bigger refactorings.