Description

For shared queries we generate a test query, as the shared query library is not directly testable. This generated query simply imported the shared library. For example, for dead code we had the following:

// GENERATED FILE - DO NOT MODIFYimport codingstandards.cpp.rules.deadcode.DeadCode

However, the query uses an abstract class mechanism to implement rule-specific exclusions. Again, forDeadCode.qll we have:

abstractclassDeadCodeSharedQueryextendsQuery{}QuerygetQuery(){resultinstanceofDeadCodeSharedQuery}...querypredicateproblems(Stmts,stringmessage){notisExcluded(s,getQuery())and

In this way the queries for specific rules can provide the correctQuery instance, so only deviations for that rule will apply for that query.

Our test framework did not opt into this, as it did not extend theDeadCodeSharedQuery.getQuery() is therefore empty, which means no exclusions are applied through theisExcluded predicate.

The fix is to update our code generator to create an extension of the..SharedQuery using a dummy test query. For example:

class TestFileQuery extends DeadCodeSharedQuery, TestQuery { }

This addresses compiler compatibility test failures marked "Results reported outside the source location" for the following queries:

• A15-5-3 (qcc, gcc, clang)
• A25-1-1 (qcc, gcc, clang)
• A25-4-1 (qcc)
• CON53-CPP (qcc, gcc, clang)
• CTR57-CPP (qcc)
• CTR58-CPP (qcc, gcc, clang)
• ERR50-CPP (qcc, gcc, clang))

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 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!)