Skip to content

Implement expressions2 package #881

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

MichaelRFairhurst
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Implement EXP16-C

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:
    • EXP16-C
  • 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 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!)

@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 31, 2025 02:45
Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a 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 PR implements the CERT-C rule EXP16-C by adding a new CodeQL query and updating supporting extraction scripts. Key changes include:

  • Adding the query file for EXP16-C with compliant and noncompliant examples.
  • Updating the cert-help-extraction.py script to extract both rules and recommendations, and fixing broken URLs.
  • Enhancing link correction logic within the extraction helper.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 12 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
scripts/help/cert-help-extraction.py Improved extraction logic with added support for recommendations and URL fixes.
c/cert/src/rules/EXP16-C/DoNotCompareFunctionPointersToConstantValues.md Added a new query file containing examples for EXP16-C.
Files not reviewed (10)
  • c/cert/src/rules/EXP16-C/DoNotCompareFunctionPointersToConstantValues.ql: Language not supported
  • c/cert/test/rules/EXP16-C/DoNotCompareFunctionPointersToConstantValues.expected: Language not supported
  • c/cert/test/rules/EXP16-C/DoNotCompareFunctionPointersToConstantValues.qlref: Language not supported
  • c/cert/test/rules/EXP16-C/test.c: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/c/Expressions2.qll: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/c/RuleMetadata.qll: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/types/Compatible.qll: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/types/FunctionType.qll: Language not supported
  • rule_packages/c/Expressions2.json: Language not supported
  • rules.csv: Language not supported
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

scripts/help/cert-help-extraction.py:67

  • The loop iterates over results from get_rule_listings without checking if rule_listing_start is None. This may lead to an attribute error if soup.find returns None; consider adding a check before using its attributes.
for rule_listing_start in get_rule_listings():

c/cert/src/rules/EXP16-C/DoNotCompareFunctionPointersToConstantValues.md:52

  • [nitpick] There are two sections labeled 'Compliant Solution', which could be confusing. Consider differentiating the sections or merging them to clearly explain the distinct approaches.
```cpp
/* First the options that are allowed only for root */
if (getuid == (uid_t(*)(void))0 || geteuid != (uid_t(*)(void))0) { 

Tip: Copilot code review supports C#, Go, Java, JavaScript, Markdown, Python, Ruby and TypeScript, with more languages coming soon. Learn more

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst force-pushed the michaelrfairhurst/implement-expressions2-package branch 2 times, most recently from f948e54 to 44e089c Compare April 10, 2025 15:46
@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst force-pushed the michaelrfairhurst/implement-expressions2-package branch from 44e089c to 010b7c7 Compare April 10, 2025 16:27
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.

Looks reasonable. I have one optional comment - whether we should consider excluding results which are guarding a call to the same function.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants