Rename codeql-analysis.yml to codeql.yml

[naidneelttil]

recently it seems that the default codeQL configuration name has changed to codeql.yml. this change would ensure that if anyone were to fork the project they don't have to change the filename to get coding alert issues.

[echoix]

https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/code-scanning/creating-an-advanced-setup-for-code-scanning/customizing-your-advanced-setup-for-code-scanning#:~:text=for%20example%2C%20by%20default%2C%20the%20workflow%20file%20for%20codeql%20code%20scanning%20is%20called%20codeql%2Danalysis.yml "For example, by default, the workflow file for CodeQL code scanning is called codeql-analysis.yml"

I don't seem to find that.

Do you have more info that I can find more about the change?

How I understand CodeQL works, it shouldn't be a problem to keep the old name. It fact it may be less of a problem.
For example, in January, in #3361 (merged Jan 15) when I recreated the CodeQL workflow, I went and used the language's canonical name "c-cpp" (not the alias "cpp"). Later on, I realized that there were some warnings in the job summaries (or a gray box instead of a check for the PR checks) for every PR run that mentioned that a configurations were missing. Look at #3431, merged in February. https://github.com/OSGeo/grass/runs/21664470025


The missing configurations on main were unexpected, since c-cpp and python worked in main. The twist was that the full length configuration tag/label was slightly different by default. So that meant there were 4 configurations. Issues that were fixed and merged weren't being closed in the list of issues.

I searched a bit, and to finally solve it (tried it in my fork before), I deleted the old configurations, and it cleaned those. On a next run on main, the correct issues were reopened if still present. That was in March, probably March 3.

Like this:

So, all this to show, that changing the file name will most probably change that configuration tag again. So that would have an impact again on everyone that already has a fork of grass and that enabled workflows (and thus might be running CodeQL when code scanning after forking).

So, what usability issue does it solve for new users?

(I'm not against if justified enough, that's why I took the time to show my experiences)

[wenzeslaus]

Seems like the change is not necessary and may cause additional work. Closing. Thanks @naidneelttil anyway!