Allow configurable docker socket path for CodeQuality

What does this MR do and why?

#409738 (closed)

This MR exposes an environment variable DOCKER_SOCKET_PATH to configure the docker socket path in cases where the path is not /var/run/docker.sock. Example use case would be for rootless DinD, where socket path is /var/run/user/<USERID>/docker.sock

Support for configuring the DOCKER_SOCKET_PATH variable for the CodeQuality Docker images was added in the following MR: gitlab-org/ci-cd/codequality!73 (merged)

This MR closes the loop on exposing the option out to pipeline authors who use the Code Quality Job template, and might need to set this depending on their environment.

Screenshots or screen recordings

n/a

How to set up and validate locally

n/a

MR acceptance checklist

This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

• I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.

changed milestone to %16.3

added Community contribution citemplates groupstatic analysis typefeature labels

assigned to @vyaklushin

added devopssecure sectionsec labels

mentioned in merge request !122403 (closed)

It's based on Community contribution MR: !122403 (closed).

	2 Warnings
	featureaddition and featureenhancement merge requests normally have a documentation change. Consider adding a documentation update or confirming the documentation plan with the Technical Writer counterpart. For more information, see: The Handbook page on merge request types. The definition of done documentation.
	You've made some app changes, but didn't add any tests. That's OK as long as you're refactoring existing code, but please consider adding any of the maintenancepipelines, maintenancerefactor, maintenanceworkflow, documentation, QA labels.

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes files that require a review from the CI/CD Templates maintainers.

This merge request requires a CI/CD Template review. To make sure these changes are reviewed, take the following steps:

1. Ensure the merge request has the citemplates label. If the merge request modifies CI/CD Template files, Danger will do this for you.
2. Prepare your MR for a CI/CD Template review according to the template development guide.
3. Assign and @ mention the CI/CD Template reviewer suggested by Reviewer Roulette.

The following files require a review from the CI/CD Templates maintainers:

• lib/gitlab/ci/templates/Jobs/Code-Quality.gitlab-ci.yml

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
citemplates	Timo Furrer (@timofurrer) (UTC+2, same timezone as @vyaklushin)	Avielle Wolfe (@avielle) (UTC+2, same timezone as @vyaklushin)
~"Verify"	Reviewer review is optional for ~"Verify"	Avielle Wolfe (@avielle) (UTC+2, same timezone as @vyaklushin)

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

added linked-issue label

Hi @theoretick! Can you please review this MR?

requested review from @theoretick

added featureenhancement label

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for 03524e77

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Plan        | 47     | 0      | 0       | 40    | 47    | ❗     |
| Verify      | 8      | 0      | 0       | 8     | 8     | ❗     |
| Data Stores | 20     | 0      | 0       | 15    | 20    | ❗     |
| Create      | 19     | 0      | 0       | 18    | 19    | ❗     |
| Manage      | 12     | 0      | 1       | 12    | 13    | ❗     |
| Govern      | 19     | 0      | 0       | 18    | 19    | ❗     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 125    | 0      | 1       | 111   | 126   | ❗     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

approved this merge request

@theoretick, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

• rspec predictive jobs
• jest predictive jobs
• merging a merge request.

added pipeline:mr-approved label

merged

@theoretick, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline was created more than 6 hours ago OR finished more than 2 hours ago, you should:

1. Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
2. Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
3. Set the merge request to auto-merge.

This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.

This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.

@vyaklushin, how was your code review experience with this merge request? Please tell us how we can continue to iterate and improve:

1. React with a or a on this comment to describe your experience.
2. Create a new comment starting with @gitlab-bot feedback below, and leave any additional feedback you have for us in the comment.

Interested in learning more tips and tricks to solve your next challenge faster? Subscribe to the GitLab Community Newsletter for contributor-focused content and opportunities to level up.

Thanks for your help!

This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.

resolved all threads

mentioned in commit a3fec72e