[Feature Request] Quality gate option for Files Changed in Pull request

[bauroo]

Product Area

The "Run Salesforce Code Analyzer" GitHub Action

Your Need or Problem

Currently there is an option to have a quality gate on all the issues using this method:

 - name: Check the Outputs to Determine Whether to Fail
         if: |
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.exit-code > 0 ||
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.num-sev1-violations > 0 ||
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.num-sev2-violations > 0 ||
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.num-violations > 10
         run: exit 1

Your Desired Solution

It would be good if there would also be an possibility to have a quality gate on the changed files:

 - name: Check the Outputs to Determine Whether to Fail
         if: |
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.changedFiles.exit-code > 0 ||
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.changedFiles.num-sev1-violations > 0 ||
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.changedFiles.num-sev2-violations > 0 ||
           steps.run-code-analyzer.outputs.changedFiles.num-violations > 10
         run: exit 1

This way it would be possible to improve quality over time as you might have some legacy code which already may have issues

Alternatives Considered

No response

Additional Context (Screenshots, Files, etc)

No response

Workaround

No response

Urgency

Low

[jfeingold35]

@bauroo , this seems broadly doable. We'll log it as a work item in our backlog, and we'll provide more information as and when it becomes available.

[git2gus]

This issue has been linked to a new work item: W-19419849

[yippie]

For legacy codebases, enforcing new rules across the entire thing is nearly impossible (we have 600 violations, mostly naming conventions) but hard enforcing on changed files only would be amazing, then we can make sure no new issue are introduced and slowly cleanup the old as we touch them.

[stephen-carter-at-sf]

@yippie Thanks for the use case. In addition to diff based solutions, we are also looking into alternative solutions (like suppressing all existing violations in a suppressions file so that you then only get notified for new violations). But we do not have a firm date as to when this will be delivered. Thanks for your patience. Keep the use cases and pain points coming, as it helps us prioritize and deliver the best solutions.

Meanwhile I'll ask the team to prioritize adding in some new output variables based on the diffed files (like num-sev1-violations-from-diffed-files, etc or something like that) because I do think this is low hanging fruit that we might be able to do sooner rather than later.

[namrata111f]

We have added new output variables to resolve the customer use-case as part of the changes: forcedotcom/run-code-analyzer#111. Once these changes are released the issue should get resolved.

[yippie]

@namrata111f That is wonderful to hear!! Do you have any idea when the next release will happen?

[aruntyagiTutu]

@yippie - as of now, the release is planned for the end of this month. I wil update this thread as soon as the feature is released and available.

Thanks!

[namrata111f]

This release has been completed with version v2.6.0.