Package Preprocessor6

[knewbury01]

Description

add DIR-4-9

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:
  • DIR-4-9
• 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!)

[knewbury01]

Notes:

this query has a lot of results, I think if there are more omission edge cases that would help, or additional/better heuristics for how to identify good cases to suggest where the rule is applicable. As it stands, I have added it as audit since it has so many results

possible consideration - what if the arg to the macro is a function name, that technically could be a function with a function pointer arg, but this reduction could keep it in the "simpler" realm

//possibly add
not exists(Function f | i.getUnexpandedArgument(_) = f.getName())

similar but more extreme: maybe limit it to int type args?

(exists(i.getUnexpandedArgument(0).toInt()) )

[knewbury01]

Notes Oct 18

@rvermeulen thanks for the review,

I have left the UnsafeMacro base set in the implementation (~500) results on openpilot as opposed to without (~900 results) but we can rm it if it seems not as needed.

otherwise have refactored greatly! please take another look when you have time :)

[rvermeulen]

Another case we can't replace is if the macro uses a stringizing or concatenation operator.

[rvermeulen]

LGTM