Skip to content

Fixes false positives for M0-1-3. #350

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Aug 30, 2023

Conversation

rak3-sh
Copy link
Contributor

@rak3-sh rak3-sh commented Aug 23, 2023

Description

This PR fixes issue 349
Constexpr variables which are used in template instantiations are not considered "used".

Example

template <int t>
class CharBuffer
{
  public:
  int member[t];
  CharBuffer():member{0}{}
};

int foo()
{
  constexpr int line_length = 1024U;
  CharBuffer<line_length> buffer{}; // line_length is used here but reported as a violation for M0-1-3
  return buffer.member[0];
}

The fix is to conservatively check that if a template instantiation or a static assert has a constant which is equal to a local variable marked as a constexpr, then the said variable is considered as used.

Change request type

  • Release or process automation (GitHub workflows, internal scripts)
  • Internal documentation
  • External documentation
  • Query files (.ql, .qll, .qls or unit tests)
  • External scripts (analysis report or other code shipped as part of a release)

Rules with added or modified queries

  • No rules added
  • Queries have been added for the following rules:
    • rule number here
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • M0-1-3

Release change checklist

A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:

  • The structure or layout of the release artifacts.
  • The evaluation performance (memory, execution time) of an existing query.
  • The results of an existing query in any circumstance.

If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.

Author: Is a change note required?

  • Yes
  • No

🚨🚨🚨
Reviewer: Confirm that format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.

  • Confirmed

Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.

  • Confirmed

Query development review checklist

For PRs that add new queries or modify existing queries, the following checklist should be completed by both the author and reviewer:

Author

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Reviewer

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @rak3-sh - nice job. Just a few minor tweaks.

@rak3-sh rak3-sh requested a review from lcartey August 30, 2023 02:22
@lcartey
Copy link
Collaborator

lcartey commented Aug 30, 2023

@rak3-sh this also requires clang-format.

@rak3-sh
Copy link
Contributor Author

rak3-sh commented Aug 30, 2023

Applied clang-format in 7804c40. @lcartey : Kindly approve the workflow.

@lcartey lcartey enabled auto-merge August 30, 2023 13:56
@lcartey lcartey added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 30, 2023
Merged via the queue into github:main with commit e43fbbc Aug 30, 2023
@rak3-sh rak3-sh deleted the rp/m0-1-3-false-positives-fix branch August 6, 2024 06:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants