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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Rule 11.4 improvements #332

Open
wants to merge 15 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Rule 11.4 improvements #332

wants to merge 15 commits into from

Conversation

lcartey
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey commented Jul 29, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Description

This pull request makes the following improvements to the query for Rule 11.4:

  • Consider 0 to be a null pointer constant (fixes RULE-11-4: Consider 0 to be a null pointer constant. #331).
  • Report the actual types and order in the error message.
  • If the result arises from a macro invocation that is not function-like, then report the macro itself. This helps reduce the overall number of results, and reduces the duplication by not reporting expansions of the same macro multiple times.
  • If the result arises from a macro invocation which is function-like we now report the macro in addition to the regular result, to aid with debugging.

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:
    • RULE-11-4

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!)

@lcartey
Pointers: 0 is a null pointer constant
aab3a88 
According to MISRA C 2012 8.11 zero is a null pointer constant, and so
should not be flagged as non_compliant.
@lcartey
RULE-11-4: Compress macro results
5ad86ef 
Where results arise from macro expansions, where there's no possibility
that the cast was passed in through a macro argument, we compress the
results by reporting the macro location once instead of each use.
@lcartey
RULE 11.4: Improve reporting
916df88 
Improve the message by (a) reporting which order the cast is (b) what
the actual types are (c) by providing a link to the macro invocation if
the cast is created by a function like macro
@lcartey
Add change note.
49d0aef
@knewbury01 knewbury01 self-requested a review April 23, 2024 17:08
knewbury01
knewbury01 requested changes Apr 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@knewbury01 knewbury01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

minor comments only, otherwise looks good! @lcartey

needs a merge resolve,
and I think you accidentally marked the reviewer's checkboxes , not the author's ones, I agree with the completion of those, but please also mark the author ones!

@lcartey
Merge branch 'main' into lcartey/rule-11-4-improvements
8936221
@lcartey
Update 11.6 to reflect standard
6702c64 
Rule text specifies that the exclusion is on integer constants
with value 0 instead of null pointer constants
@lcartey
Update change note to reflect impact on other queries
2672d08
@lcartey
RULE-11-9: do not accept 0 as a null pointer constant
0ec5f72 
Rule 11.9 has a different set of requirements for null pointer
constants to the other rules.
@lcartey
RULE-11-9: Improve ternary test cases
7155952 
This rule intends to prohibit the use of 0 within branches of
ternaries, where the ternary expression itself produces a pointer
expression because the other branch of the ternary is a pointer.

The previous test case didn't capture this behaviour, instead
looking for assignments within branches.
@lcartey
Fix issue with detecting ternary expressions.
575be09
@lcartey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

lcartey commented Sep 6, 2024

@knewbury01 this has been updated, and ready for re-review.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@knewbury01 knewbury01 Awaiting requested review from knewbury01

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
Coding Standards Public Development Board
Status: No status
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RULE-11-4: Consider 0 to be a null pointer constant.
2 participants
@lcartey @knewbury01