- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork68
Implement MISRA-C++23 Preprocesser package rules 19-0-4, 19-1-1, and 19-2-1#893
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
base:main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Implement MISRA-C++23 Preprocesser package rules 19-0-4, 19-1-1, and 19-2-1#893
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Pull Request Overview
This pull request implements new CodeQL queries to enforce MISRA-C++23 preprocessor rules (RULE-19-0-4, RULE-19-1-1, and RULE-19-2-1), and it adds test cases to verify improper include guards and misuse of the preprocessor.
- Added test files with intentionally malformed include guards and misuse of the "defined" operator.
- Created new QL query files to detect violations of MISRA preprocessor rules.
- Updated common utilities and exclusion lists to support preprocessor-related queries.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 34 out of 34 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-19-2-1/invalid2.h | Test file with an include guard using "#ifdef" instead of "#ifndef". |
| cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-19-2-1/invalid1.h | Test file with a spelling mismatch in the include guard macros. |
| Other files | New queries and supporting files for enforcing MISRA preprocessor rules. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Looks good - mostly suggestion on 19.2.1, where we have some prior art.
| from File included | ||
| where | ||
| not isExcluded(included, PreprocessorPackage::noValidIfdefGuardInHeaderQuery()) and | ||
| included = any(Compilation c).getAFileCompiled().getAnIncludedFile+() and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
In other Coding Standard queries we use theHeaderFile class to identify header files, based on the extension. The advantage of this approach is that we will report contraventions in files in header libraries that are not included within the header library itself. Given that this can be an important case, and for consistency reasons, I would suggest we switch definitions.
| .getLocation() | ||
| .isBefore(includeGuard.getDefine().getLocation()) and | ||
| // Stricter: do not allow includes outside of the inclusion guard | ||
| not exists(Include include | isOutside(includeGuard, include.getLocation())) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
My recollection is that these two conditions are already factored in within the theCorrectIncludeGuard. Is that not the case? SpecificallystartsWithIfndef has the following:
exists(Locationloc| loc=ifndef.getLocation() and loc.getFile()= hf and loc.getStartLine()=min(int l|includeGuardRelevantLine(hf,l)))
Which should enforce that the condition appears on the first meaningful line of the file?
| // Stricter: do not allow includes outside of the inclusion guard | ||
| not exists(Include include | isOutside(includeGuard, include.getLocation())) | ||
| ) | ||
| select included, "File does not have a well formatted include guard." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I would suggest reviewing theIncludeGuardsNotUsed shared query to see if it could be reused here. It does cover one additional case not covered by this query - the case where the identifier used in an include guard is duplicated across multiple header files.
| @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | |||
| // COMPLIANT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
The rule permits comments anywhere - perhaps add a test where there are additional comments after the#if and#endif.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
…lement-package-preprocessorUpdate qtil to 0.0.2, which is newly published to support newer versions of codeql/util.
Note: Updated to use qtil. |
Description
Also includes two files in
cpp/utilwhich I intend to port toqtilpackage (CondensedListandPair).Change request type
.ql,.qll,.qlsor unit tests)Rules with added or modified queries
RULE-19-0-4,RULE-19-1-1,RULE-19-2-1Release change checklist
A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:
If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.
Author: Is a change note required?
🚨🚨🚨
Reviewer: Confirm that format ofshared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.
Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.
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
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.
Reviewer
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.