✨ Add check ID

[ashearin]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Enhancement to our structured results. Adds a static Check ID for all checks, along with updates to check validation process to make sure the ID is unique. Only impacts Json results.

I also ran betteralign on the files where I made changes to struct members. This resulted in changes to structs I did not touch, but I left the changes since they are beneficial changes. Can revert if thats preferred.

• PR title follows the guidelines defined in our pull request documentation

What is the current behavior?

Json output only has name for identifying the check

{
    "details": null,
    "score": 10,
    "reason": "no binaries found in the repo",
    "name": "Binary-Artifacts",
    "documentation": {
        "url": "https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/blob/main/docs/checks.md#binary-artifacts",
        "short": "Determines if the project has generated executable (binary) artifacts in the source repository."
    }
},

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?**

Adding a uint as a unique ID allows users to filter/search for checks without string comparison.

{
    "id": 3,
    "details": null,
    "score": 10,
    "reason": "no binaries found in the repo",
    "name": "Binary-Artifacts",
    "documentation": {
        "url": "https://github.com/ossf/scorecard/blob/main/docs/checks.md#binary-artifacts",
        "short": "Determines if the project has generated executable (binary) artifacts in the source repository."
    }
},

Which issue(s) this PR fixes

Fixes #2577

Special notes for your reviewer

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Add Check ID 

[spencerschrock]

Declaring the ints in the checks.yaml and validating new duplicates seems reasonable to me. Although I'm curious what would happen if a check were deleted, how would we mark its old number as reserved.

I think this change represents an interesting challenge for the cron, as it's something we could technically go and backfill data for. Can we wait on this until after OSS NA?

Since probes/structured results haven't been released yet, I had thought this could be an easy change to probes in the meantime.

I also ran betteralign on the files where I made changes to struct members. This resulted in changes to structs I did not touch, but I left the changes since they are beneficial changes. Can revert if thats preferred.

Note the linter we use currently is fieldalignment (mentioned in the betteralign readme)

go install golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis/passes/fieldalignment/cmd/fieldalignment
fieldalignment -fix

[spencerschrock]

this requires coordinating a schema update for the bigquery table. which is more involved than I have time for this week with OSS NA prep.

[ashearin]

I think this change represents an interesting challenge for the cron, as it's something we could technically go and backfill data for. Can we wait on this until after OSS NA?

No rush from me, will do a bit more cleanup and we can look at it after next week

[ashearin]

Note the linter we use currently is fieldalignment

Went back and reset the structs and ran fieldalignment on them.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been marked stale because it has been open for 10 days with no activity