Skip to content

test: re-run the CodeQL suppression experiment with documented placement #82

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
sumitake merged 3 commits into from
Jul 30, 2026
Merged

test: re-run the CodeQL suppression experiment with documented placement #82

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
27b697a
test: re-run the CodeQL suppression experiment with documented placement
sumitake Jul 30, 2026
288a10b
tests: record that BOTH CodeQL suppression placements were tested
sumitake Jul 30, 2026
b33cb8a
tests: cite CodeQL check-run ids alongside the commits
sumitake Jul 30, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions changelog.d/2026-07-30-codeql-both-placements.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
### Changed

- Record that both inline CodeQL suppression placements were tested and neither is honoured in this setup: a trailing same-line comment and the documented standalone comment line immediately before the call. The earlier note cited only the first, which left the conclusion resting on a single placement and invited a repeat attempt. Both the commits and their CodeQL check-run ids are named at the call site, so the next reader lands on the evidence rather than on a commit, and can stop rather than re-derive.
13 changes: 9 additions & 4 deletions tests/test_claude_transcript_model.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -175,10 +175,15 @@ def test_group_writable_transcript_is_rejected(self):
# mechanisms were tried and do not work here --
# * inline codeql suppression comments for rule id
# py/overly-permissive-file are NOT honoured by GitHub code scanning
# in this setup (verified empirically in PR #80: the alerts re-fired
# on the annotated lines). The suppression grammar is deliberately
# paraphrased here so this comment is not itself a suppression-shaped
# token that a future parser could match or an audit could miscount;
# in this setup. BOTH placements were tested and both re-fired the
# alerts on the annotated lines: a trailing same-line comment (PR
# #80, commit 0017b3f, CodeQL check run 90773472337) and the
# documented standalone comment line immediately before the call
# (PR #82, commit 27b697a, CodeQL check run 90784725147). Do not
# spend a third cycle on a placement variant. The suppression grammar is
# deliberately paraphrased here so this comment is not itself a
# suppression-shaped token that a future parser could match or an
# audit could miscount;
# * stock CodeQL config cannot scope a filter to a path --
# `query-filters` match query metadata repository-wide, so excluding
# the query would unscan production, and `paths-ignore` drops EVERY
Expand Down
Loading