Sarif output

[ben-wilson-peak]

Sarif output

[ben-wilson-peak]

Thanks @ben-wilson-peak . Agree that there's some usability improvements we could do with the dependency review action to more actionable and contextual to the workflow run. We'll take this into advisement for future improvements!

As far as suggested fixes goes - take a look at using Dependabot to manage dependency updates

Looking forward to it!

User story wise, we'd ideally like to avoid committing a change which introduces an issue to then have another PR to update the dependency. It would be better to block a bad dep being introduced at the source and patch it there.

[jonjanego]

Hi @ben-wilson-peak ! Could you elaborate a bit more on the workflow you're thinking of, for when you'd use a SARIF output after running the action?

[ben-wilson-peak]

Hi @ben-wilson-peak ! Could you elaborate a bit more on the workflow you're thinking of, for when you'd use a SARIF output after running the action?

Absolutely. I'd like to use it in lieu of the comment output. Personally I find the output to be a little useless. It conveys information but it's not a call for action.

It doesn't need to be SARIF really, I'm happy to change the title. I'm not sure of the functional difference between SARIF with advanced security and just line highlighting. Example here - https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-commands-for-github-actions#using-workflow-commands-to-access-toolkit-functions

Suggested fixes directly in the PR would be a killer feature but I understand adds complexity

[ben-wilson-peak]

ignore that accidental close, somehow hit ctrl + enter 😆

[jonjanego]

Thanks @ben-wilson-peak . Agree that there's some usability improvements we could do with the dependency review action to more actionable and contextual to the workflow run. We'll take this into advisement for future improvements!

As far as suggested fixes goes - take a look at using Dependabot to manage dependency updates