Skip to content

RULE-5-4: Exclude results which do not occur in the same compilation, improve alert message #769

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 8 commits into from
Oct 22, 2024

Conversation

lcartey
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey commented Oct 21, 2024

Description

  • Fixes RULE-5-4: Ignore macros defined on different compilation paths #768 by
    • Excluding results which occur within an #ifndef for the same macro
    • Excluding mutually exclusive definitions in the same file, e.g. where two definitions are guarded by different cases in a sequence of #if,#elif, #else branches.
    • Only report cases where there exists a file which unconditionally includes the file containing the first macro and the file containing the second macro.
    • If both macros are expanded at least once, we enforce that there exists a single link target in which both macros were expanded.
  • Improves the alert message in the case that the size limit is not hit. This makes it easier to understand why we've flagged this particular case.

Note: ee use locations of multiple elements in this query, which required some careful performance optimisations to perform well across different codebase.

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:
    • RULE-5-4

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!)

Add helper predicates for identifying macros defined in conditional
blocks, and pairs of macros which are mutually exclusive.
 - Macros in #ifndef MACRO_NAME blocks
 - Pairs of macros that exists in different #if/#elif/#else cases
 - Pairs of macros defined in files that are mutually exclusively
   included.
 - If the macros are used, they must be both occur in the same
   link target.
@lcartey lcartey requested a review from nicolaswill October 21, 2024 20:30
@lcartey lcartey added this to the 2.37.0 milestone Oct 22, 2024
@lcartey lcartey requested a review from nicolaswill October 22, 2024 20:18
@nicolaswill nicolaswill enabled auto-merge October 22, 2024 20:24
@nicolaswill nicolaswill added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 22, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit 5d247be Oct 22, 2024
24 checks passed
@nicolaswill nicolaswill deleted the lcartey/rule-5-4-conditional-inclusion branch October 22, 2024 22:18
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.

RULE-5-4: Ignore macros defined on different compilation paths
2 participants