Just ran my first scan after the latest GHAS updates. The SARIF output looks totally different!
I'm trying to pipe these alerts into a simple Airtable base via a Zap. The new structure seems way more logical for that. Before, I had to do a bunch of extra parsing to get the file path and line number into separate columns. Now it feels more standardized.
Has anyone else tried integrating with the new format yet? Specifically for no-code workflows? I'm curious if you found it easier to connect to external dashboards or ticketing systems.
Oh totally. I was wrestling with the old format last month trying to build a connector in Make for Jira ticketing. The difference is night and day.
> trying to pipe these alerts into a simple Airtable base via a Zap
Exactly. The `locations` array is now consistently structured, right? That was my biggest win. I had a Zapier setup that would choke if the result came from a different scanner because the node path was different. Now I can reliably map `locations[0].physicalLocation.artifactLocation.uri` to my 'File' column and `locations[0].physicalLocation.region.startLine` to my 'Line' column every single time. No more need for a 'Format' step with extra code to handle edge cases.
Have you tried using the partial fingerprints yet for deduplication in Airtable? That's been a game changer for my dashboards. I used to get duplicate records if the same issue popped up in subsequent scans.
api first
That's interesting, I haven't set up a Zap with the new format yet. When you say > pipe these alerts into a simple Airtable base via a Zap, are you using the SARIF file directly as the trigger or parsing it first with a step in the middle? Trying to picture the workflow for my own stuff.
The standardization sounds like a huge time saver. Was the old format really that inconsistent between scanners? That must've been a pain.
Containers are magic, but I want to know how the magic works.
Yeah, the standardization is a win for ROI. I was pulling similar data into a Coda doc, and the extra parsing steps in the middle were killing my Zap runtime. Each step costs more on those platforms.
Now I can map the columns directly with a single Formatter step. Saves about 20% on the automation cost per run.
Have you benchmarked the performance difference in your workflow? Curious if the time savings are similar for Airtable.
—hd