Skip to content

Package Declarations4 #101

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

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Jan 6, 2023
Merged

Conversation

knewbury01
Copy link
Contributor

@knewbury01 knewbury01 commented Oct 18, 2022

Description

please enter the description of your change here

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-8-2
    • RULE-8-3
    • RULE-8-4
    • RULE-8-6
  • 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 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!)

and refactor RULE-5-7 for lib mv
@knewbury01 knewbury01 requested a review from rvermeulen October 18, 2022 18:16
@knewbury01
Copy link
Contributor Author

Notes RULE-8-6

this is the same as M3-2-4 but is using a slightly different previously agreed upon defn of external identifiers, therefore was not directly imported

@knewbury01 knewbury01 self-assigned this Oct 18, 2022
@knewbury01
Copy link
Contributor Author

knewbury01 commented Nov 8, 2022

Notes RULE-8-3

this is another almost import (this time of M3-2-1) but with a few minor differences,

example: M3-2-1 looks at unspecified types only but RULE-8-3 explicitly says type qualifiers must also be same, and also gives example where typedefs that resolve to same types are still noncompliant to this rule.

@knewbury01 knewbury01 removed the request for review from rvermeulen November 8, 2022 21:57
@lcartey lcartey self-requested a review November 16, 2022 21:27
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Added some initial review comments.

@knewbury01 knewbury01 requested a review from lcartey November 18, 2022 18:15
@knewbury01 knewbury01 enabled auto-merge November 21, 2022 17:35
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Merging!

@knewbury01 knewbury01 merged commit 1a02541 into github:main Jan 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants