Skip to content
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

Detect compilations with no warnings when '-w' flag is present. #688

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MichaelRFairhurst
Copy link
Contributor

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst commented Sep 17, 2024

Description

Gcc may be compiled to auto include warnings such as -Wformat. However, passing in -w will suppress the enabled format warnings. The previous query would not raise an issue, as it saw the -Wformat flag etc, even though if -w was present, causing gcc to run with no warnings enabled.

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:
    • autosar A1-1-2

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!)

Gcc may be compiled to auto include warnings such as -Wformat. However,
passing in `-w` will suppress the enabled format warnings. The previous
query would not raise an issue, as it saw the `-Wformat` flag etc, even
though if `-w` was present, causing gcc to run with no warnings enabled.
@MichaelRFairhurst
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR is blocked, codeql run test automatically adds a -w flag during extraction, therefore we cannot create a \\ COMPLIANT test case via codeql run test.

@lcartey Should we remove the "compliant" test cases for now, so we can fix this false negative? Or should we wait for a plan, either via changes to our test infra or to codeql run test, so that we can land this with both compliant & non-compliant test cases?

MichaelRFairhurst added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2024
The presence of -Wno-foo should not mark the compilation compliant with
A1-1-2, nor should the presence of -Wfoo=0.

Easily check for all -Wfoo=bar flags, that foo is not no-baz, and bar is
not 0. Also check there is no -Wno-foo flag overruling it. Otherwise the
query functionality remains the same.

Add test cases for non-compliant scenarios -Wfoo=0 and -Wno-foo, and for
the compliant scenario -Wall -Wno-foo.

This will have some compatibility issues with PR #688, after one is
merged the other will need some small updates before this can be merged.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

A1-1-2: does not detect compilations that suppress warnings with -w flag
1 participant