Skip to content
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

M0-2-1: make into split and shared query #637

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024

Conversation

knewbury01
Copy link
Contributor

@knewbury01 knewbury01 commented Jul 10, 2024

Description

additionally moved some libraries to allow for use in shared query

Fixes #119

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:
    • M0-2-1
    • EXP43-C

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!)

moved some libraries to allow for use in shared query
@knewbury01 knewbury01 self-assigned this Jul 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@nicolaswill nicolaswill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM other than some naming and documentation points

rule_packages/cpp/Representation.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rule_packages/c/Pointers3.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rule_packages/cpp/Representation.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@nicolaswill nicolaswill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@knewbury01 knewbury01 added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 26, 2024
Merged via the queue into github:main with commit 28c0fed Aug 26, 2024
21 checks passed
@knewbury01 knewbury01 deleted the knewbury01/fix-119 branch August 26, 2024 15:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

M0-2-1: Consider array copies with overlapping data
2 participants