Description

closes #386.

The implementation here follows the exact recommendations in the issue. which are -

Exclude all #else preprocessor directives from consideration (if a wrapper ifdef/ifndef is invalid then we only want to report at that location). We were also invalidly considering an #elif as a non permitted item in a valid ifdef/ifndef - so that is now also excluded.

there are still a couple of cases where behaviour may not be ideal according to the rule example. but this is unavoidable based on what is in the database when conditional compilation occurs, I have included them in the testcase simply as documentation of what occurs. here I add some annotations about what would be more ideal:

#ifdef OBJECTLIKE_MACRO_NO // NON_COMPLIANT - likely ideally should not be reported based on knowing what we have in the database, but we currently dont check what is the "closest" wrapper macro (ie this is reported bc of the int x = 1;, not the elif nor the int x = 0; ). although according to the rule description it would make sense to report this.
int x = 0;                 // not present
#elif OBJECTLIKE_MACRO > 0 // NON_COMPLIANT
int x = 1;  // present
#endif                     // COMPLIANT

#ifdef OBJECTLIKE_MACRO // NON_COMPLIANT
int x1 = 0;             // present
#elif OBJECTLIKE_MACRO >                                                       \
    -1 // COMPLIANT - by technicality of conditional compilation - according to the rule description this should be reported but we simply cannot
int x1 = 1; // not present
#endif // COMPLIANT

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:
  • A16-0-1

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!)