Ignore configuration file repo property for unsupported analysis kinds

[mbg]

This PR is a crude change to ignore the configuration file repository property if analysis-kinds is anything other than just code-scanning. This addresses a potential issue where we want to have a custom configuration file containing query customisations for a repo that has both Code Scanning and Code Quality enabled. We do not currently support query customisation for Code Quality, so that would then result in an error and prevent query customisation via the configuration file.

Notes for reviewers

• This is intended merely as a quick fix if we consider the above issue to be sufficiently significant.
• We could accept the issue and suggest use of the github-codeql-extra-queries property for query customisation in affected repositories instead.
• A better solution (but which will take more time) is to not fail/ignore if query customisation is applied to a Code Quality analysis or support it.

Risk assessment

For internal use only. Please select the risk level of this change:

• Low risk: Changes are fully under feature flags, or have been fully tested and validated in pre-production environments and are highly observable, or are documentation or test only.

Which use cases does this change impact?

Workflow types:

• Managed - Impacts users with dynamic workflows (Default Setup, Code Quality, ...).

Products:

• Code Quality - The changes impact analyses when analysis-kinds: code-quality.
• Other first-party - The changes impact other first-party analyses.

Environments:

• Dotcom - Impacts CodeQL workflows on github.com and/or GitHub Enterprise Cloud with Data Residency.
• GHES - Impacts CodeQL workflows on GitHub Enterprise Server.

How did/will you validate this change?

• Test repository - This change will be tested on a test repository before merging.
• Unit tests - I am depending on unit test coverage (i.e. tests in .test.ts files).
• End-to-end tests - I am depending on PR checks (i.e. tests in pr-checks).

If something goes wrong after this change is released, what are the mitigation and rollback strategies?

• Rollback - Change can only be disabled by rolling back the release or releasing a new version with a fix.

How will you know if something goes wrong after this change is released?

• Telemetry - I rely on existing telemetry or have made changes to the telemetry.
  • Dashboards - I will watch relevant dashboards for issues after the release. Consider whether this requires this change to be released at a particular time rather than as part of a regular release.
  • Alerts - New or existing monitors will trip if something goes wrong with this change.

Are there any special considerations for merging or releasing this change?

• No special considerations - This change can be merged at any time.

Merge / deployment checklist

• Confirm this change is backwards compatible with existing workflows.
• Consider adding a changelog entry for this change.
• Confirm the readme and docs have been updated if necessary.

[Copilot]

Warning

• Copilot's review of this pull request may be incomplete because some of the changed files are excluded by your Copilot content exclusion settings. See Excluding content from Copilot for details.

Pull request overview

Ignores repository-provided configuration files when unsupported analysis kinds are enabled.

Changes:

• Passes analysis kinds into configuration-file resolution.
• Restricts repository properties to Code Scanning-only analysis.
• Adds unit coverage for supported and unsupported analysis kinds.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
src/init-action.ts	Resolves analysis kinds before selecting the configuration file.
src/config/file.ts	Applies the analysis-kind restriction.
src/config/file.test.ts	Tests configuration selection behavior.
lib/entry-points.js	Generated artifact; excluded from review.

Review details

Files excluded by content exclusion policy (1)

• lib/entry-points.js

• Files reviewed: 3/4 changed files
• Comments generated: 0
• Review effort level: Medium

[henrymercer]

Consider a debug log that we're ignoring the property, otherwise LGTM