2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
jklein	f284d209f7	sonar: correct the project key, and record what the first run measured ... The project key was a guess. The project exists in SonarQube as JLab-Helm-Charts; jlab-cluster_helm-charts was reasoned from the instance serving two owners, and it produced the one error message that covers both a non-existent project and a token without permission on it: ERROR You're not authorized to analyze this project or the project doesn't exist on SonarQube and you're not authorized to create it. Because the server does not distinguish those two cases, the next occurrence of that message now means the token lacks "Execute Analysis" - which is worth a comment in the file rather than a second round of guessing. sonar.projectName goes away entirely. Once the project exists on the server the display name belongs to the server, and a name sent with every analysis would overwrite a rename there on every run, silently. The reason is a comment in the file so the line is not added back as an obvious omission. The README analyser table was built from SonarQube's language list and promised more than this instance delivers. Measured in run 375: two quality profiles loaded, json and yaml; the IaC Kubernetes sensor (3.4 s) and the secrets detection over all 391 indexed files did the work. Shell and GitHub Actions did not run, and no configuration here can make them - analysers are server-side plugins. The consequence is now stated: the five ci/ scripts and the thirty workflow files, the files carrying the actual logic, are not analysed at all. Whether the instance gains those plugins is a decision outside this repository. Run 375 also answered the three questions this path carried, all positively: node24 is in the runner image, the ~59 MiB scanner download and its signature arrived in roughly three seconds (so the MTU failure that once killed a 17 MB download does not repeat), and a repository variable does reach a workflow called from another repository - which settles the identical question the publish route carried for OP_CONNECT_HOST. The publish route's upload is still unproven and stays listed as such. Fixes #74	2026-10-02 00:15:06 +00:00
jklein	67d8c94fb3	ci: call the shared SonarQube block, and say what it does not do ... Adds the caller side of the analysis: .github/workflows/sonar.yml as a hull of the same kind as the publish ones, and sonar-project.properties as the project-specific half. The workflow itself is the shared block in workflow-util/pipelines, bound to @v4. No paths filter, unlike the publish hulls: the analysis looks at the whole tree - the five shell scripts under ci/, every workflow file, the YAML and Helm templates, the values.schema.json files, and the secret detection over everything. A filter would leave the previous result standing after a change it did not cover while still presenting it as current. workflow_dispatch is on the hull on purpose. Three things about this path are unmeasured - node24 in the runner image, the ~59 MiB scanner download, and whether a repository variable reaches a workflow called from another repository - and any of them may need more than one attempt. Without a dispatch every attempt would cost a dummy commit on main. No exclusions, including the Helm templates, which are not valid YAML because of {{ }}. What the Helm and YAML analysers make of them is only learnable by letting them run over them once, and an exclusion written on a guess hides whatever else matches it. If the first run produces noise worth suppressing, the exclusion belongs in sonar-project.properties with the finding it answers named next to it. The project key carries the owner (jlab-cluster_helm-charts) because the instance serves two, and a key cannot be changed afterwards without losing the project's history. The analysis is not a gate. The Community Build analyses the main branch only, so the trigger is a push to main and a finding appears after the merge - at which point there is nothing left to block. README and the CI-CD wiki page both say so, with the two conditions under which a gate would become right, so that its absence is not read as an oversight.	2026-10-01 23:49:48 +00:00