Fix github code quality complaints

[whotwagner]

https://github.com/ait-detectmate/DetectMateLibrary/security/quality

[ernstleierzopf]

We want to have these scans, at least additionally to the main branch, in the development Branch. Therefore advanced settings for the Code Scanning must be enabled. I do not have the rights to change this. Please go to https://github.com/ait-detectmate/DetectMateLibrary/security/code-scanning/tools/CodeQL/status/configurations/automatic and change Setup Type from Default Setup to Advanced Setup. This creates a config file in .github/workflows/codeql.yml which allows me to do the further setup changes.

[ernstleierzopf]

@ait-detectmate/core anyone with the correct rights, please change this setup type. Thanks

[viktorbeck98]

#76

[ernstleierzopf]

Please also remove the default setup from https://github.com/ait-detectmate/DetectMateLibrary/security/code-scanning/tools/CodeQL/status/configurations/automatic
Otherwise Github ignores the codeql.yml file.
When I click on the Default Setup, I get an 404 error.

[viktorbeck98]

Does that solve it? @ernstleierzopf

[ernstleierzopf]

It kind of works, but not fully. I fixed conflicts in your new pull request and it did successfully start the CodeQL Analysis Action (there were 4 actions instead of 2), but status still shows the default setup configured.
https://github.com/ait-detectmate/DetectMateLibrary/security/code-scanning/tools/CodeQL/status/

What do you see if you click to CodeQL -> Default Setup? Do you also get a 404 error? If yes then probably someone with more rights must remove this, otherwise the advanced setup does not show up.

[viktorbeck98]

When I access, I see a configuration page with a section "Code Scanning" where I can enable advanced settings for CodeQL. When I do that, it creates the same PR again as #79

[ernstleierzopf]

the same behavior happens when i try to add a new Code Scanning Tool..

Can we try to remove it completely and try to set it up from beginning?

[viktorbeck98]

@whotwagner do you know how to solve this? Otherwise, I'd suggest we make a call to solve this quickly.