Update Codacy workflow to use specific action versions for consistency

[Klintrup]

This pull request updates the way dependencies are referenced in the Codacy workflow configuration to use explicit commit SHAs instead of version tags. This improves the security and reliability of the workflow by ensuring that the exact intended versions of actions are used.

Dependency version pinning:

• Updated the actions/checkout step to use a specific commit SHA (11bd71901bbe5b1630ceea73d27597364c9af683) instead of the general v4 tag. (.github/workflows/codacy.yml)
• Updated the codacy/codacy-analysis-cli-action step to use a specific commit SHA (562ee3e92b8e92df8b67e0a5ff8aa8e261919c08) instead of the general v4.4.7 tag. (.github/workflows/codacy.yml)

[codara-ai-code-review]

Potential issues, bugs, and flaws that can introduce unwanted behavior.

1. Version Pinning without Clarity:
   • File: .github/workflows/codacy.yml
   • Issue: Using a commit SHA (e.g., 11bd71901bbe5b1630ceea73d27597364c9af683) for the actions/checkout and codacy/codacy-analysis-cli-action can lead to unexpected behavior if there are breaking changes in future updates of those actions, especially since the specificity of a commit hash does not guarantee the tested state of the code. Documenting the reason for choosing a specific commit may help others understand the context.

Code suggestions and improvements for better exception handling, logic, standardization, and consistency.

1. Use Semantic Versioning for Actions:

   • File: .github/workflows/codacy.yml
   • Suggestion: Instead of using a commit SHA, consider using semantic versioning (e.g., @v4) for the actions. This can provide a clearer understanding of which features or fixes are expected based on the version history and can facilitate upgrades as needed while maintaining compatibility.

2. Comment Clarity:

   • File: .github/workflows/codacy.yml
   • Suggestion: Ensure comments are updated to reflect changes in the code. The comment mentions using version v4.2.2 specifically, but the line refers to v4 and a commit hash. Consider revising the comments to specify the benefits of using the current version or how to choose a different one.

3. Group Related Steps:

   • File: .github/workflows/codacy.yml
   • Suggestion: For better organization, it is often beneficial to group related steps or actions together and include comments that separate logic flows. This will improve readability and maintainability of the YAML file. For example, separating the checkout step from the analysis step with comments and spacing can help.

4. Error Handling for Analysis:

   • File: .github/workflows/codacy.yml
   • Suggestion: Implement error handling following the Run Codacy Analysis CLI for better visibility on failures. For example, adding a step to handle and report errors from the analysis step can be beneficial for troubleshooting issues downstream.

By implementing these suggestions, you can improve the clarity, maintainability, and robustness of your GitHub Actions workflow configuration.

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Warnings	Elapsed time
✅ BASH	bash-exec	1		0	0	0.21s
✅ BASH	shellcheck	1		0	0	0.08s
✅ BASH	shfmt	1	0	0	0	0.02s
✅ COPYPASTE	jscpd	yes		no	no	1.39s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdownlint	2	0	0	0	0.54s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdown-link-check	3		0	0	3.63s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdown-table-formatter	3	0	0	0	0.17s
✅ REPOSITORY	checkov	yes		no	no	12.2s
✅ REPOSITORY	gitleaks	yes		no	no	0.06s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	no	0.0s
✅ REPOSITORY	grype	yes		no	no	25.14s
✅ REPOSITORY	syft	yes		no	no	1.05s
✅ REPOSITORY	trivy	yes		no	no	6.83s
✅ REPOSITORY	trivy-sbom	yes		no	no	0.09s
✅ REPOSITORY	trufflehog	yes		no	no	2.17s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud