Description

Implement package preprocessor2. Builds on#893

Rule 19-3-4 has a number of reports in popular repositories that are not false positives by the rule text:

• most commonly, macros like#define M(X, Y) f(X, Y) which do not need parenthesis but the rule text disallows
• Cases of macros calling macros,#define M1(..., X, ...) ... (X) ...,#define M2(X) M1(..., X, ...) whether this violates the rule by text is ambiguous. This is a subset of the above case. Very difficult to detect.
• much more rarely,M(arr[1 * 1]) is non-compliant by rule text but clearly safe.MatchingParenthesis module could be extended to exclude these findings, with additional work.
• Other rare cases, for example#define M(X) {X;}

The matching parenthesis parser is does not have error recovery. There are potentially false negatives when parenthesis are unbalanced, but

• such cases should be rare, require trickery to even write
• such cases should indicate a low confidence in our analysis

Adding error recovery would likely be a modest amount of work. An easier solution, though it still suffers from the same two above problems, would be a recursivegetDepth function that matches the behavior described in the rule text (depth +1 on '(', depth - 1 on ')', depth unchanged otherwise).

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-19-2-2
  • RULE-19-3-4
  • RULE-19-6-1
• Queries have been modified for the following rules:
  • rule number here

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 ofshared 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 thestyle 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 thestyle 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!)