checkmake VS reviewdog

I note the maintainer has asked for help with the project and called for additional maintainers:

https://github.com/mrtazz/checkmake/issues/44

I build a general converter from SARIF to Reviewdog Diagnostic Format (RDFormat), then use Reviewdog to give suggested code changes as well as the context of the changes for PR reviewing.

I helped improve the Kubescape GitHub Actions fix suggestions code review process, where I created the workflow which works by collecting the SARIF (Static Analysis Results Interchange Format) file that kubescape generates. Then, with the help of HollowMan6/sarif4reviewdog, convert the SARIF file into RDFormat (Reviewdog Diagnostic Format) and generate reviews for code fix suggestions on GitHub Actions using Reviewdog. I also helped add the “fix" object support for the Kubescape-generated SARIF report.

Static analysis should be performed continuously by CI (Continuous Integration) to prevent unintentional inclusion of code. The JSON output schema is compatible with reviewdog and can be used as is in reviewdog.

Trigger reviewdog checks on a repository via GitLab webhook rather than CI job.

# parameters - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: report-file default: reportfile description: Report file with errors - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: format default: golint description: Format of error input from the task - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: reporter default: local description: Reporter type for reviewdog https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporters - op: add path: /spec/params/- value: name: diff default: git diff FETCH_HEAD description: Diff command https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporters # workspaces - op: add path: /spec/workspaces/- value: name: token description: | Workspace which contains a token file for Github Pull Request comments. Must have a token file with the Github API access token # steps - op: add path: /spec/steps/- value: name: reviewdog-report image: golangci/golangci-lint:v1.31-alpine # both have the same workspace name workingDir: $(workspaces.source.path) script: | #!/bin/sh set -ue wget -O - -q https://raw.githubusercontent.com/reviewdog/reviewdog/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(go env GOPATH)/bin export REVIEWDOG_GITHUB_API_TOKEN=$(cat $(workspaces.token.path)/token) cat $(params.reportfile) | reviewdog -f=$(params.format) -diff="$(params.diff)"

In reference article, use prettier to format the markdown and the code snippets. I implement a text review using textlint and reviewdog in addition to that.

JetBrains Qodana is one option, but currently requires glue code to map the findings to MR comments. I'm using reviewdog for it but I'm hoping they'll eventually fix it to have native integration

I'm trying to make a GitHub action which automatically runs tsc to find TypeScript errors. Those errors should be annotated inline in the PR/Commits. I found reviewdog, which should work perfectly for this - but I played around with that for about 4 hours now and can't seem to get it to report errors successfully. tsc exits with code 2, but reviewdog still says that everything went fine. So I'm trying to find another solution for this, has anyone here done this before? For comparison, I managed to do the same thing with ESLint by adding a custom formatter to the eslint command (-f param),‍ which then gets automatically picked up by the GitHub action - but I can't find something similar for tsc..

I used ReviewDog to wire in Qodana results, so I hear you about wishing it was built in, but it is achievable: https://github.com/reviewdog/reviewdog#reporter-gitlab-merge...

Based on my contact with GitLab's built-in other scanning tools, I wouldn't trust their vuln management further than I could throw it, so you're likely not missing much on that front