Skip to content

ci(scheduled-security-scan): align codeql-action refs to v4.37.4 - #738

Closed
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/recursing-pasteur-adaeae
Closed

ci(scheduled-security-scan): align codeql-action refs to v4.37.4#738
seonghobae wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/recursing-pasteur-adaeae

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changed

Bumped the github/codeql-action/init and github/codeql-action/analyze steps in .github/workflows/scheduled-security-scan.yml from 99df26d4 (v4.37.0) to f205ea1c (v4.37.4), matching the upload-sarif step in the same file.

Why

#719 (Dependabot) bumped only the upload-sarif step, leaving the workflow with mixed github/codeql-action refs. The contract test tests/test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py::test_codeql_action_steps_use_one_version_per_workflow requires one ref per workflow file, so it fails on the current tree.

Notes for reviewers

  • codeql-pr.yml still pins v4.37.0 but is internally consistent, so the contract passes; Dependabot will bump it as a unit.
  • Verified locally: python -m pytest tests/test_codeql_pr_workflow_contract.py -q → 3 passed.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Dependabot bumped only the upload-sarif step to v4.37.4 (#719), leaving
init/analyze at v4.37.0 in the same workflow. The contract test
test_codeql_action_steps_use_one_version_per_workflow requires a single
github/codeql-action ref per workflow file, so bump init/analyze to the
same f205ea1c (v4.37.4) pin.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 28 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d7177ed2-da46-4f75-99a1-cac72ba833c9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3f65dbe and 0ca9c4e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .github/workflows/scheduled-security-scan.yml

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge (squash) August 4, 2026 09:05

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Superseded by #731, which applies the same scheduled-security-scan CodeQL ref alignment together with the codeql-pr alignment and the Strix/stale-pin baseline repairs required for the central repository’s current gates to pass atomically. Keeping this narrower PR open would duplicate the same workflow edit and create avoidable conflicts/check load.

@seonghobae seonghobae closed this Aug 4, 2026
auto-merge was automatically disabled August 4, 2026 09:18

Pull request was closed

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.

1 participant