"sonar-scanner" sends analysis results to SQ Server; "Analyze with SonarQube for IDE" doesn't?

Please provide

  • Operating system: MacOS Sonoma 14.3.1
  • SonarLint plugin version: SonarQube for IDE 10.14.1.80220
  • IntelliJ version: Webstorm 2024.1.7
  • Programming language you’re coding in: react/vite
  • Is connected mode used:
    • Connected to SonarCloud or SonarQube (and which version): Yes; SonarQube Server Community Edition@latest

And a thorough description of the problem / question:

I am able to get the results of analyzing my code base in the IDE using “sonar-scanner”, but when I run “Analyze With SonarQube for IDE”, the scan runs but does not communicate the scan results to SonarQube server.

I am running in Connected Mode and I am connected to my local instance of SQ Server at localhost:8080. I also have “Focus on new code” and “Automatically trigger analysis” checked.

Please advise.

Hello and welcome to the Sonar community,

The scan in the IDE is meant to stay local and to give an indication on whether the quality gate in SQ Server would pass but doesn’t cover all the quality gate parameters (e.g. code coverage).
The other way around, as you’re using connected mode, your SQ Server analysis results will be synced with your SQ-IDE analysis:

  • You’ll get notified about the Quality Gate status
  • The issues status will be synced (Won’t Fix, Accept)
  • The New Code Definition from SQ Server will be applied in the IDE for the new code focus, etc.

With the setting “Automatically trigger analysis”, the server analysis integrated in your CI pipeline will be triggered on each Pull Request with, for example, more advanced security hotspots analysis and cross file analysis for architectural issues.

Could you explain more why would you like to see the SonarQube for IDE analysis results reflected in SonarQube Server?

Thank you for your feedback.

Best regards,
Farah.

It seems there is a misunderstanding on my part. I was under the impression that my team would want to communicate local analysis results directly back to the server, but based on this understanding, I believe that to be incorrect now.

Thank you for the additional context!

No worries, happy to help whenever you have any doubts.

Best regards,
Farah.